[bestbits] thoughts welcome on proposed netmundial submission

[Ian Peter]

Below are some words I have prepared to submit to NetMundial (acting purely as an individual) before the March 8 deadline. I have copied them to a couple of lists because I know others think similarly – and I am more than prepared to amend this and transform it into a sign-on statement if there is interest. 

I acknowledge firstly inputs from others on various lists discussing this which I have adopted. If people are interested in contributing and signing on, happy to take that on board on list or off list. But I do want a pragmatic proposal which has a good chance of being adopted, and will not include suggestions that would be counter to getting some immediate action on this.

 I appreciate there are many other thoughts on this and encourage others to make submissions direct to Netmundial outlining other solutions if they feel so inclined. But any inputs to refine this particular widely discussed suggestion are very welcome.

 This will have to be finalised for sign on, if that direction is taken, by about March 4. 

Ian Peter

DRAFT FOLLOWS

 Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA functions within the multistakeholder ICANN model.

 This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only – the future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of the preferred multistakeholder model.

 Indeed, IANA itself was established  in an era before current internet governance models (multistakeholder) and governance institutions (eg ICANN) were in existence. 



ROADMAP

 This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer need a separate entity and would more productively merged with similar functions under the auspices of ICANN. Subject of course to many concerns about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.

 In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the following roadmap is proposed.

1.       ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of the previous IANA functions within the ICANN multistakeholder model, bearing in mind the following criteria:



(a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper interference; 

(b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the administration of the root zone; 

(c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root zone; and 

(e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest."

2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014.

3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in consultation with major stakeholders.

4. The solution must have the following characteristics


(a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation attacks

(b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .



(c) is an inclusive model

(d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area 



END DRAFT




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140228/69936927/attachment.htm>