[governance] please read: APC text on Forum function

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

Totally agree. I was involved in some of the IANA with Postel, with Green
and White Paper and was also disillusioned with how ICANN was formed. Did
watch it through the "reform" of what was broke and see how many of the
issues remained unresolved, i.e. GAC, At-large etc. So it is not just gov
but also some other stakeholders calling for reform. 

Thanks for your comments.

Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: Ronda Hauben [mailto:ronda at panix.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:29 PM
To: Laina Raveendran Greene
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Lee McKnight'; Ronda Hauben; wdrake at ictsd.ch
Subject: RE: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function


Yupe - having some actual education about the Internet and its origins would
have been something one would have hoped that the WSIS process would have
spent some resources on - to start the process off on a sound note. But
perhaps people had to get interested in why this is important, which maybe
is only now happening. In any case it is good it happens.

The interconnection of dissimilar but peer networks is a critical part of
the nature of the Internet, and that is why the creation of ICANN was a
serious problem from the beginning.

Under IANA, there was a mailing list of the administrators of the cctld's
where there was some form of consultation process and discussion of what was
happening with regard to the decisions being made. I only saw the mailing
list at the time when ICANN was in the works, but ICANN was a serious
diversion from the way that there had been an effort to have a collaborative
process with feedback in the whole creation and development of the Internet.

The problems introduced by the way that ICANN was created, and what was
created are serious.

This is the critical problem that WSIS had to deal with, but it just seemed
that it got lost in other issues.

In any case, the problem of creating an international public management form
for the Internet's infrastructure will continue to be a critical problem
that needs solution, or else there will be a serious danger to the integrity
of the Internet.

Any claims that there is "no problem" are seriously mistaken.


On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:

>
> So true. And these principles, including that of shared responsibility 
> ensures that we can then count on it as the NGN. Interesting that few 
> people involved in the IP NGN issues are involved in IG issues. I 
> think this is key.
>
> Meanwhile, whilst I was in Geneva, I heared rumours that some 
> delegations (not to be named) are hoping to use the lack of info of 
> the public Internet and how this open architecture works, to tell 
> delegates that want to control the Internet, to agree to have their 
> own DNS and IP system, without telling them that that would be 
> introducing an alternative root system, thereby fragmenting the open 
> and public architecture of the Internet. Not sure how this has progressed
over the last few days, but I was concerned about this.
> I was also concerned that some CS players were feeding this confusion 
> by making such statements too.

Thanks for this info. I hadn't noticed discussion of this on the list before
(though the posts have become too voluminous to read them all lately).

This is the critical danger that exists.

WSIS had to recognize this danger early on and take measures to counter it.

>
> This gets emotions high. Also they are not making a difference between 
> oversight of new names and existing one (especially TLDs) and also the 
> difference between management of  IP address allocation issues which 
> is not really under ICANN or US gov as such. DNS wise, The Somalia? And
Libya?

Management of the IP addresses is under an entity that the US created and
that is ultimately also under ICANN as far as I understood.

The IP addresses is in fact what is critical to the operation of the
Internet. It is serious there hasn't been more public discussion of this.

> examples were being circulated as saying the US can get a CCTLD off 
> the Internet if they like to. Apparently coincidentally or NOT, these 
> countries were in discussions or something with the US when it happened.

I thought there were examples of how ICANN took names out of the root, and I
know of at least one case where ICANN's mismanagement led to one entity
losing its domain name and someone hijacking it.

So there is a real problem with ICANN as an entity that is not legitimate
and not created as an entity capable of dealing with a very serious
obligation.


>
> As far as I know, the individuals running the master and the copies 
> around the world of the root server, will usually not allow this to 
> happen. It may have happened because the administrator did not pay 
> their dues for the CCTLD or something. Between this and IP issues, 
> there may also be concern that as we go IP NGN globally, allocation 
> issues will also be important and not sure they understand how this 
> will be done. I was involved in APNIC';s early days and I do know 
> misconceptions governments have about this. Being part of and having a 
> say in APNIC is not something they know how to do, as these are new
cultures to them.
>
> Getting the facts right would certainly help diffuse the emotions 
> running high in Geneva. Not break it but diffuse it.

Yes there is a problem of governments getting it right. It doesn't help to
have a situation where the key issues are not being made clear, but instead
secondary issues are being raised to cloud what is really at stake.

The process needs open information and discussion, rather than obfuscation.

> Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas Ronda.

Thanks Laina for this info about what is happening and the background you
have given.

>
> Laina

>

Ronda

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ronda Hauben
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 3:55 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Laina Raveendran Greene
> Cc: 'Lee McKnight'; wdrake at ictsd.ch
> Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function
>
>
> About 'end-to-end' and 'open architecture'
>
> Actually the architectural principle for the internet was 'open 
> architecture' which meant that all the info about the the 
> communicating networks would function as peers of each other,rather 
> than requiring that any one become a component of another."
>
> A definition of open architecture is "Open architecture...describes 
> the structure of the Internet, which is built on standard interfaces, 
> protocols, a basic data format, and a uniform identifier or addressing 
> mechanism. All the information needed regarding the interconnection 
> aspects is publicly available."
>
> The end to end principle has been promoted as the essence of the 
> Internet, but the Internet is not any single network (which goes from 
> one end to another end.). The Internet is a network of networks.
>
> So it is important that this interconnection of dissimilar networks be 
> recognized in characterizing the Internet, as this is the conception 
> of its origin and what its nature is. This is what makes it possible 
> for so many dissimilar networks to be interconnected in today's Internet.
>
> Ronda
>
> http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt
>
> http://www.circleid.com/article/96_0_1_0_Chttp://www.circleid.com/arti
> cle/96
> _0_1_0_C
>
> http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:
>
>>
>> Agreed with you Lee. There is a need to remind people about the 
>> openess of the Internet and the spirit in which it was created and 
>> spread around the world. In our statement, we tried to remind 
>> delegates that the Internet was created by individuals with a high 
>> sense of shared responsibility and trust, and any efforts for IG, 
>> whether improving the status quo, creating a forum and/or new 
>> oversight mechanisms, should all be done within these same spirit.
>>
>> Currently, as Amb Klarkin pointed out, we are at a unique juncture of 
>> public and private international law coming together. It has happened 
>> before from the 60s to 90s, with the rise of MNCs and international 
>> law moving towards the application of "soft laws" and increase of 
>> private international law applications. Now we have the civil society 
>> equation, which is new to some agencies especially the likes of ITU.
>> It is a very unique juncture of the creation of a "new form of 
>> cooperation" between stakeholders and a new form of "soft law" (even 
>> moving beyond what we have in PIL....a term used in public 
>> international law vis a vis MOUs e.g. lke the one we had on GMPCS on 
>> LEOs
> etc..).
>>
>> Laina
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
>> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee McKnight
>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:21 PM
>> To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function
>>
>> Karen, Bill,
>>
>> I appreciate your intent Karen and APC's intent but agree with Bill 
>> that 'binding international agreements' on openness is a 
>> contradication in terms that will never fly.
>>
>> Language more along the lines that the forum's efforts should keep in 
>> mind the need to preserve the Internet's essential features, such as, 
>> 'openness etc..' might have the opposite effect of making agreement 
>> easier, since then the forum is signalling the techies that it will 
>> not
> muck things up.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
>> School of Information Studies
>> Syracuse University
>> +1-315-443-6891office
>> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>
>>>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/29/05 5:55 AM >>>
>> Karen,
>>
>>>> In the context of the evolving public and technical policy 
>>>> landscape
>> of
>>>> the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding
>> international
>>>> agreements that relate to:
>>>>
>>>> -        the architectural principles of the Internet, including
>>>> interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle
>>
>> I am very strongly opposed to putting this in the forum, and believe 
>> it will provide the USA and business with a big opening to reject the 
>> forum outright.  I hope you will reconsider, it's dangerous.
>>
>> Rest is consistent more or less with IGcaucus etc.
>>
>> BD
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>> _______________________________________________
>>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance