<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">David<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 11 August 2012 01:05 AM,
David Conrad wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1D283A44-AE35-46C0-B511-D30C5DD66034@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder,
On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:33 AM, parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Either you have a plan for change, or you agree largely with the status quo.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
You have gone on at significant length about "the South" demands things must change (and oddly, I haven't seen anyone, North or South, argue that things must remain the same), but I haven't seen your plan. End goals such as "less US government involvement in CIR" or "more root servers outside the US" are not plans as far as I am aware.
Being relatively new to this list, I'm sure I missed it somewhere. What is your plan for change?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I can gladly describe it as I have done often before, of course, as
long as you do not ask me to follow IETF RFC template, or even
further, as Alexandro would want me to, show a demo type in practice
beforehand......<br>
<br>
First of all, I would like to approach CIR issues and non CIR issues
separately, vis a vis the needed institutional changes that are
required. Non CIR issues are the non technical global public policy
issues related to the Internet which can be best understood by
looking at the activities of OECD's Committee on Information,
Communication and Computers Policies (CICCP). This committee looks
at issues like role of Internet intermediaries, economy of personal
data, general principles for Internet policy making (largely not
touching CIR area), cross border cooperation on security, privacy,
data flows...... and so on.........<br>
<br>
<u>CIR side</u><br>
<br>
The main issue of concern here is the role of the US government. Its
role should be taken up by a new international body, outside the UN,
can be called Internet Oversight Body, as a placeholder, which will
have very limited and very constrained functions, largely as are of
the US gov today vis a vis CIR management. Its members are selected
through a non-national and non-gov, regional process relying on
larger stakeholder constituencies.... (details can be discussed).
While the ICANN + system does require some reform, the overall
current distributed CIR management model should be retained, and get
agreed to and sanctioned by appropriate agreements among all.<br>
<br>
Carlos Afonso had made very through proposal in this regard in 2005,
which Bill said yesterday 'was good' ( to quote him precisely, he
said 'Carlos's chapter was good'). There is some overlap between
Carlos's proposal and Brazil gov proposal made around the same time.
Both are contained in the enclosed doc which is the 'Carlos's
chapter' mentioned by Bill. I have been encouraging Carlos and the
Brazilian gov reps over the last few months to revive these
proposals. I repeat that appeal. I see them as a good basis to <i>start</i>
working on for proposing a improved institutional model for CIR
management. <br>
<br>
<u>Non CIR, or general public policy (GPP) side</u><br>
<br>
Unlike what its critiques took it to be, the main thrust of the
India's CIRP proposal was not CIR oversight but looking at larger
Internet related public policies - non technical issues of economic,
social, cultural and political significance. Just the kind of work
that OECD's CICCP does. Anyway, I think that the CIRP proposal
should forgo an CIR oversight role for the CIRP, and focus only on
the general public policy issues. In fact, CIRP structure directly
takes from the CICCP structure, but further improves it, by making
stakeholder participation more clear, concrete and thus effective.
Furthermore, CIRP proposes to give IGF an important role in initial
policy development preparatory work, and agenda shaping. (With
OECD's CICCP having no corresponding system).<br>
<br>
Therefore an<br>
<br>
(1) Internet Oversight Board (or as per Carlos's proposal a
International Internet Coordination and Evaluation Council ) takes
over the oversight role over the CIR management system<br>
<br>
(2) A UN Committee on Internet Related Policies takes up non CIR
general public policies, on the same pattern as OECD's CICCP,
whereby while today OECD makes general Internet related policies
that by default get applied to the whole world, we have a similar
committee but with all countries represented doing EXACTLY the same
work.... (I am unable to see how one can object to this).<br>
<br>
This is just a template to begun a serious discussion. As long as,
as you say, no one argues 'that things should remain the same", we
can together chart a path to the new system. That is my change
model. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1D283A44-AE35-46C0-B511-D30C5DD66034@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Thanks,
-drc
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>