<!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>
I agree with every single thing you have written in this email; only
you have put it all so much better than I have been able to :).<br>
<br>
I do not blame ICANN for being clumsy in dealing with public policy
matters, because, as you stress, that is not its mandate. Yes, ICANN
needs better and clearer public policy guidelines and principles to be
able to do its core technical function. (Tunis agenda calls for
developing such principles as one main function of 'enhanced
cooperation'). However, those within ICANN and outside who ask for full
autonomy of ICANN (from authoritative public policy guidance), need to
explain how do they seek to expand ICANN roles into public policy areas
as well. On what basis, and what would be the required changes to the
ICANN?. I do see that you are completely against any such expansion,
and so am I.<br>
<br>
Either ICANN does its own public policy, which is against its current
mandate, or public policy directions come from outside. My case is that
the present manner in which it gets its public policy directions is
very problematic, unbalanced and undemocratic. I do give quarters to
some level of bottom up and p2p consultative public policy inputting,
but often that leaves the final decisions so fully and unaccountably in
ICANN hands that it practically does its own substantive public
policy, which, somewhat expectedly, mostly results in not too good
results. The inept manner in which ICANN has dealt with the many public
policy issues around new gtlds being a case in point. Over this year,
we would hear much about this 'case'. <br>
<br>
You highlight very well the kind of difficulties that the ICANN system
faces with regard to public policy issues impinging on its technical
coordination work. Operationalising 'enhanced cooperation' is precisely
about addressing this 'key problem'. However, it is not the idea to put
some governments in charge who could be giving ad hoc directions to
ICANN. We need a much more sophisticated response. My proposal was
something like the following.<br>
<br>
A UN CIRP like body - without a direct oversight role like at present
with the US - does soft policy work, develops policy principles and
frameworks, explores spaces of possible agreements, </font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">enable treaties when
required...... basically does the task that you describe so well as
follows, <br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote>
<div>"If you're seeking consensus on important and complex public
policy matters, it would be best to drive that to resolution down to
basic principles of agreement elsewhere before attempting to apply
those principles to technical matters such as protocol development and
identifier management." (John Curran)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Then these policy principles
and frameworks are variously communicated to the ICANN system. An
internationalised oversight board takes over the oversight function
currently performed by the US, but has a minimal direct inference
possibility. It does review of structure, process, mechanisms etc, but
also conveys the authoritative public policy principles developed at
the UN CIRP to ICANN. A GAC like body is the more operational and
regular interface with ICANN, giving advance inputs, review of
decisions etc, based on the coded public policy principles. It would
work more or less as at present but maybe with improved and better
structured relationship with ICAAN board and other bodies. <br>
<br>
And as a final judicial review forum, the International court of
justice can be asked to have a separate division for Internet related
matters, as it does for some other areas. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
On Sunday 01 July 2012 09:50 PM, John Curran wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:E948C6DA-608E-4367-BE12-044DAC8D3E08@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>On Jul 1, 2012, at 8:19 AM, parminder wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div 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.</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I believe they get incorporated in an ad-hoc manner only
because there is </div>
<div>a lack of consensus on how and where "social and public policy
norms" </div>
<div>are documented by society. Having no clear expression of
public policy </div>
<div>requirements and having dozens of expressions of public policy
requirements</div>
<div>are both equally bad, as what is needed for guidance in
technical protocol</div>
<div>development and identifier coordination is the input of
single statements</div>
<div>of which "social and public policy norms" are applicable.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For example, a clear requirement exists with respect to privacy
of residential </div>
<div>data within Canada (due to strong data privacy statutes) but it
is not quite as</div>
<div>clear in the US nor in the 25 Caribbean economies in the ARIN
region. As we </div>
<div>have to make regional policy which works for everyone, the
resulting policy on</div>
<div>level of information in the public (IP) Whois directory
basically must consider</div>
<div>the clear policy requirements from Canada and allow for the
redaction of that </div>
<div>information if and when service providers assign large IP
address blocks for </div>
<div>individual subscribers. We have no conflicting guidance, so it
was easy to </div>
<div>accomodate as required.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Having clear guidance on the social and public policy norms lets
those working</div>
<div>on Internet protocols and protocol identifier management
actively avoid having</div>
<div>conflicts with such guidance. It's still a difficult job, but
it is doable, in that the</div>
<div>various implications of protocol or identifier management can be
held up against</div>
<div>the received guidance to make sure that the final implemented
processes for </div>
<div>identifier management will indeed be compatible.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>When no such guidance or (almost as bad) multiple conflicting
guidance is received, </div>
<div>then you are left with a predominantly technical community
attempting to work on </div>
<div>social and public matters to fill the gap in social and public
policy norms. The job </div>
<div>will get done, but It's not pretty, and may not make anyone
happy with the result.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">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. <br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Parminder - It is inadequate, but that's because it is the wrong tool
for the job.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you're seeking consensus on important and complex public
policy matters, it </div>
<div>would be best to drive that to resolution down to basic
principles of agreement</div>
<div>elsewhere before attempting to apply those principles to
technical matters such</div>
<div>as protocol development and identifier management.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">The oversight issue is about
developing an appropriate and adequate method for incorporating the
relevant public policy concerns in technical coordination functions.</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are two uses of the term "oversight" with respect to ICANN:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) Oversight of ICANN in the overall performance of its mission </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> This is how the term "oversight" is used by many in the
Internet </div>
<div> community, and has been historically been a role held by the
USG </div>
<div> via the JPA, and has transitioned to the reviews performed
under </div>
<div> the Affirmation of Commitments. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> This is about reviews of structure, process, mechanisms, etc.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2) "Oversight" of ICANN during the policy development process</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> This is a colloquial use of the term "oversight", in that it
would </div>
<div> probably be better phrased "Monitoring and guiding ICANN when</div>
<div> it is performing policy development to produce politically
useful</div>
<div> outcomes"</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> The problem with such "oversight" is that it actually
presumes</div>
<div> that ICANN is an appropriate and useful forum for working
out </div>
<div> all of the world's previously unresolved public
policy matters. </div>
<div> For example, if governments and civil society had a single</div>
<div> clear norm for what constitutes "decent speech", then its</div>
<div> application in a technical setting would be straightforward.</div>
<div> Absent a clear social & public policy norm for such
content</div>
<div> determination, attempting to re-address the same question</div>
<div> within ICANN is not likely to produce any better outcome.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Let's recall one key statement from ICANN's core values:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing
that governments and public authorities are responsible for public
policy and duly taking into account governments' or public
authorities' recommendations."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Taking such recommendations into account _requires_ that there </div>
<div>is either a single consensus input received or indeed a high
degree </div>
<div>of commonality among all of the recommendations received. I do</div>
<div>believe that ICANN must respect the guidance in these cases, but</div>
<div>from what I can determine it is not in ICANN's mission to bring
about</div>
<div>consensus in social and public policy matters where none exists
today.</div>
<div>(and If ICANN had such amazing abilities, then we should have it
work</div>
<div>on world hunger and conflict before worrying about Internet
matters...)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">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>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Full agreement on the above statement - insuring this is a major part</div>
<div>of the current review processes.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">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>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
If the public policy considerations that you reference are areas where
we</div>
<div>have commonly accepted and documented societal norms, then those </div>
<div>documents should be formally submitted into the policy
development </div>
<div>processes and ICANN should be held accountable, per its core
values,</div>
<div>for taking them into consideration in setting policies for
technical identifier</div>
<div>coordination and management for the Internet.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If the public policy considerations that you reference are areas
where we</div>
lack commonly accepted and documented societal norms, I would think
<div>that bringing governments, civil society, and businesses
together on these </div>
<div>matters first would be a high priority, and a task much larger
in scope that</div>
<div>ICANN's mission.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>FYI,</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>p.s. Disclaimer: My views alone. The thoughts expressed may not
be suitable</div>
<div> for any specific purpose, including world domination.
This forum may not </div>
<div> grant time to responsible parties with opposing
viewpoints. May cause</div>
<div> mental staining; please try out on an unexposed section
of mind first.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>