<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Apr 12, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance">http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance</a></div><div>...</div><div>"It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."</div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>It is a very good thing that the US Congress is discussing this policy statement, </div><div>as a clear statement of the USG position on Internet Governance (backed by </div><div>consistent USG activities in Internet Governance) would help prevent confusion </div><div>when discussing the Internet Governance topic in a global context.</div><div><br></div><div>The challenge is that the Internet has enabled remarkable change throughout the </div><div>world, in a wide range of human endeavors, and many of these accomplishments </div><div>and freedoms have been enabled by the generally unregulated nature of the Internet. </div><div>However, the deregulated nature of the Internet has been historically facilitated by </div><div>a "close working relationship" with parts of the USG (DoC/NTIA) with respect to </div><div>critical Internet resource management, and furthermore other parts of the USG </div><div>(DHS, DoJ/FBI) are engaged on occasion in various law enforcement matters </div><div>which impact the Internet. Additionally, in the near future the folks at FCC may</div><div>have to take measures regarding the carriage of voice traffic on the Internet to </div><div>protect the characteristics that it presently has over the traditional trunked voice</div><div>network.</div><div><br></div><div>A policy statement which promotes a global Internet "free from government control"</div><div>but does not recognize the various agencies need to take actions which may affect</div><div>the Internet could consequentially create significant confusion within the US about</div><div>existing and near-term US agency activities with respect to the Internet.</div><div><br></div><div>An obvious solution would be to make clear that the mechanisms for performing</div><div>Internet Governance (meaning specifically the establishment of the standards, </div><div>processes, and policies for management of common global infrastructure unique </div><div>to the Internet) shall be based on the open multistakeholder model and free from</div><div>government control, but furthermore that this policy does not preclude governments </div><div>from taking measures necessary to fulfill their public policy obligations to their</div><div>constituency. Such an exclusion would provide the freedom for governments to</div><div>take actions within their own borders as needed to accomplish their (presumingly </div><div>well-formedand representative) national policy objectives. (Note - I expect it </div><div>unlikely that a USG policy statement would discuss what other governments </div><div>may do with respect to the Internet, but even if the USG simply states this </div><div>reality for its own activities, it would quickly raise the matter by inference.)</div><div><br></div><div>The counterargument to such an approach should be obvious to readers of this</div><div>list; governments do not necessarily have a great track record with respect to </div><div>taking only those actions which represent the will of the people, whether it be </div><div>also taking actions solely in the interest of the government or business sector. </div><div>By stating that governments may implement measures within their own borders </div><div>to meet their public policy objectives, the USG would be asserting a position</div><div>which previously has been argued against due to the implications for human</div><div>rights and free speech globally.</div><div><br></div><div>I have stated previously that the Internet community has not provided a clear</div><div>framework for government engagement in "Internet Governance" in the larger </div><div>context, that being both the management of common global infrastructure unique</div><div>to the Internet as well as the processes by which governments should engage</div><div>to accomplish their public policy objectives. I will observe that the absence of </div><div>a clear model for governmental engagement is actually unfortunate in two aspects:</div><div>first, as governments awaken to the need for engagement with respect to the</div><div>Internet, the lack of an Internet community model for accomplishing their public </div><div>policy goals leads governments to look to older organizations which may not be </div><div>well-suited to the task; and secondly (and perhaps not quite as obvious) is that </div><div>a clear model for how governments engage to accomplish their Internet public </div><div>policy obligations might serve as a roadmap for how the USG evolves from </div><div>its present unique circumstances in these matters.</div><div><br></div><div>FYI,</div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimer: My views alone. This message has not been reviewed by any</div><div> organizations and does not represent any official position. Do not </div><div> stare directly at this message or permanent damage may occur.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>