<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">John,<br>
<br>
You provide a good view of how some public policy issues that get
encountered in various tech coordination activities get addressed.
There indeed are some existing ways in which the concerned public
policy considerations are soaked in from the environment, if in an ad
hoc manner, which, I understand is also how you see it. You do rightly
stress '</font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">ICANN's limited mandate of technical
coordination</span></font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">.
Increasingly, it appears to me that the concerned public policy issues
are becoming more important and at the same time more complex, and the
manner in which they get incorporated in the technical coordination
function may increasingly be inadequate. (I think that this has
happened in the case of new gtlds, producing very unsatisfactory
results, something that I will take up separately.)<br>
<br>
The oversight issue is about developing an appropriate and adequate
method for incorporating the relevant public policy concerns in
technical coordination functions. But doing it in a manner that is not
ad hoc, based on proper law and policy frameworks arrived at through a
transparent and participatory process, and employing duly laid out
procedures and methods.<br>
<br>
At present there is a kind of schizophrenia whereby ICANN is caught
between its own and other actor's assessment of it being basically a
technical coordination body with limited capacity of dealing with
public policy considerations (which is inter alia also NCUC's stand)
and the increasingly important and complex public policy considerations
that are implicated in many technical coordination functions. How to
solve this conundrum is the main issue that we are facing here. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
On Saturday 30 June 2012 11:50 AM, John Curran wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1466E81A-16E5-4B9A-9D58-4018ED91E581@corp.arin.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<div>
<div>Ian -</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Good point... (I was reading and replying via a mobile phone and
misread the level of quoting.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In any case, I hope the information is useful. ICANN as a
simply a mechanism for technical </div>
<div>coordination of Internet identifiers is relatively
understandable; </div>
<div>i.e. a body which <span class="Apple-style-span" style="">performs
that sole task, while taking accepted </span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="">social and </span><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="">public policy norms into</span></div>
<div>consideration and working </div>
<div>under broad and transparent oversight by the Internet <span
class="Apple-style-span" style="">
community </span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="">in its greatest sense
(individuals, governments, civil society, </span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="">business, etc.)</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>ARIN</div>
<div><br>
On Jun 30, 2012, at 12:15 AM, "Ian Peter" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<title>Re: [governance] Oversight, was [liberationtech] Chinese
preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ?</title>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">Hi John,<br>
<br>
You are actually responding to Parminder’s query here, but thanks for
the input!<br>
<br>
Ian<br>
<br>
<br>
<hr size="3" width="95%" align="CENTER">
<b>From: </b>John Curran <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:54:51 +0000<br>
<b>To: </b>Ian Peter <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc: </b>"<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [governance] Oversight, was [liberationtech]
Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ?<br>
<br>
On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote:<br>
<br>
</span></font>
<blockquote><font face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11.5pt;">This then brings us to the issue of how to
deal with the 'oversight' function - defined as dealing with public
policy issues concerning CIR management (which includes names, numbers
and protocols). This issue also pointedly comes to the fore from the
discussion in the FBI-DEA-IPv6 thread. I am a surprised at the lack of
clarity even among veterans of this space about who deals with such a
key public policy issue and how, with clear opposite views whether
ICANN should be dealing with it or not. We know that important public
policy issues connecting directly to CIR management will keep on
arising in the future, and perhaps, multiplying in number. We need to
foresight how to deal with this situation. It is not possible to sweep
this important issues under the carpet. <br>
</span></font></blockquote>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
Ian - <br>
<br>
Without passing judgement on the current system for technical
coordination<br>
of Internet addresses, I will attempt to describe how it accommodates
public<br>
policy issues as they are encountered.<br>
<br>
Public policy issues do indeed come up in the policy discussions at
the <br>
Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), but these issues are taken along
with other<br>
factors (such as technical ability to route IP addresses, business
concerns<br>
about availability of IP addresses for service providers, civil
society concerns<br>
about privacy, etc.) and all are considered in the formation of
policy. This has<br>
led to policies which consider various public policy issues (for
example, in the<br>
ARIN region, residential privacy concerns cause that information to
be redacted<br>
from the public Whois directory per community developed policy.)<br>
<br>
Each RIR has its own community which considers policy proposals, and
those<br>
that are supported are adopted via the processes in the region.
While that can<br>
(and does) lead to slightly different policies between regions, it is
also a strength<br>
in that policies that are felt to be important can be adopted by a
region without<br>
having to await a global policy process. "Good" policies do tend to
get adopted<br>
in multiple regions, and global policies are indeed possible if all
of the regions
<br>
agree to the same policy text.<br>
<br>
At present, there are no policies in the ARIN region which directly
address the
<br>
matter which the FBI raised regarding potential lack of incentive for
accuracy in<br>
future IPv6 Whois information. In fact, there are already policies
which require<br>
accurate information to be present, but the issue being raising is
whether such<br>
industry-led self-governance policies will suffice for insuring that
the Whois<br>
information remains accurate (in the absence of need to obtain new
address <br>
blocks as exists today with IPv4.) <br>
<br>
Considering the public policy issues involved with the potential of a
top-down<br>
or "regulatory" approach might be necessary, but that type of
solution could<br>
easily be beyond ICANN's limited mandate of technical coordination.<br>
<br>
FYI,<br>
/John<br>
<br>
John Curran<br>
President and CEO<br>
ARIN<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></font></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><span></span></div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>