[governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...)

[parminder]

David

On Saturday 11 August 2012 01:05 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:33 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> Either you have a plan for change, or you agree largely with the status quo.
> 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?

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......

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.........

_CIR side_

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.

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 /start/ working on for proposing a improved 
institutional model for CIR management.

_Non CIR, or general public policy (GPP) side_

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).

Therefore an

(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

(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).

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.

parminder






























>
> Thanks,
> -drc
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120811/74c05b1d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: carlos proposal 2005.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 148359 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120811/74c05b1d/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t