[governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony]

Fri Nov 30 21:45:13 EST 2007

Taking up Alx's challenge

A structure for dealing with cybercrime would have the following inputs

1. Governmental
2. Industry players (carriers, ISPs, etc)
3. Technical innovators and standards groups  
4. Public interest groups

Each would need representation on a structure dealing with this issue.

Each would need to have its point of view considered in addressing the
issue.

Effective action would require the consent and involvement of each group

That's the building blocks (or a first stab at them), and gives you an idea
of the sort of structure that might evolve

Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info

-----Original Message-----
From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx] 
Sent: 30 November 2007 17:03
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony]

Milton,

so, for a breath of fresh air for all, do we choose one of those subjects 
(any will do for me as they are all of importance) and work out what the 
governance physiology and anatomy have to be, building on the experience 
avaialble to date?

That way, we don't have to shy away from difficult questions, we just 
tackle them as they appear in a different context.

So if for any of the issues a structure that can be useful requires, say, 
global user representation, a discussion can be held about how to provide 
it in a meaningful way, and then, if elections look like the alternative, 
a reasonably clear electorate can be defined, etc., people can look at how 
they should work; and if an ALAC-like web-of-trust concept seems a better, 
or at least an alternative solution, again that can be given proper 
thought.

And so on. No discussion precluded, no holds barred, no punches held, 
ample room for flame wars and what have you. But instead of dwelling on 
the imperfections of one organization with one field of work, people have 
a chance to apply all the lessons already learned to start something that 
solves a different, yet unsolved problem.

This productive exercise starts by identifying the problem, segmenting it 
into treatable chunks, clarifying who are the stakeholders, who their 
representatives, what their different  - potentially competing - interests 
and the principles that drive them, and so on and on. Institutional 
design, problem-oriented, problem-domain by problem-domain, building on 
history.

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540
http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
*
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
  Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:25:14 -0500
> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
> Subject: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony]
> 
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx]
>>
>> 2. my question to Milton whether there is really interest in any Internet
>> Governance question that is not ICANN;
>
> There is strong interest here in many IG issues that are not purely ICANN.
I see four main categories:
>
> 1. Internet security governance, and the related privacy issues. These
issues intersect with ICANN (DNSSEC, Whois, certain aspects of the IPv6
transition) but go beyond it (spam, viruses, phishing, DDoS attacks,
transnational cooperation among CERTS; routing security; transnational
surveillance and data retention; digital identity)
>
> 2. Transnational content regulation. A big push to regulate content in the
name of child abuse was evident at Rio; at the same time, human rights NGOs
sought to advance or solidify global commitments to free expression on the
internet (AI, Bill of Rights, Net Neutrality). Here too, there is an
intersection with ICANN issues, as when ICANN develops new global standards
to regulate the semantic content of new top-level domain names.
>
> 3. Intellectual property (at the global level). The "France to Require
ISPs to Filter Infringing Music" is an example of how copyright protection
can intersect with IG issues. IPRs do however intersect in many ways with
domain name and Whois issues, as you know, AP.
>
> 4. Trade & competition policy. A variety of international economic
regulatory issues ranging from Internet interconnection arrangements to
market dominance by MS or Google to content regulations that act as trade
barriers fall in this category. These too intersect with IPR issues (TRIPS)
and ICANN issues (e.g., IP address markets, whether national ccTLD
monopolies will be privileged with new IDNs before anyone else, etc.)
>
> You ask whether there is "still a chance for anything productive to be
done in this list with the participation of people who think that ICANN is
more half-full than half-empty?" My answer is of course there is. The
discussion would be impoverished otherwise. As I have shown in the
categories above, ICANN is a central institution and its activities
intersect with all four of them. I think ICANN defenders need to move beyond
their obsession with the "are you for us or against us" question, which is
really getting old, and deal with the substantive policy issues and the
accountability questions. Most of us so-called "ICANN critics" have always
been concerned about substantive policy issues; the criticisms stem from
disagreement with the policy directions it has taken and (not unrelated) its
susceptibility to influence from interest groups (trademark and copyright)
or political powers (USG, GAC) due to its imperfect structure.
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1157 - Release Date:
11/28/2007 12:29 PM
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.10/1160 - Release Date: 29/11/2007
20:32

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 30/11/2007
12:12

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance