[governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN

Thu Jul 5 11:24:05 EDT 2012

Carlos
I am just catching up on this dialogue. 
I think you raise excellent and important questions; do not be thrown off the track by Pisanty. (Alejandro, I'd encourage you to try to address substantive issues and not scold people on what sessions they should have attended, as if you were a schoolteacher. Especially when there is no evidence that those sessions actually addressed the issues raised or provided the opportunities for broad dialogue that exist here on this list). 

There is a structural tension between the growing need for global governance of CIRs and the regional/territorial nature of the RIRs, just as there is a tension between Internet governance and territorial nation-states. The ICANN board, with a few exceptions such as Narten and Plzak, are almost completely ignorant of numbering issues, and the ICANN staff is trying very hard to avoid them as much as possible, partly out of deference to the RIRs, partly out of a feeling that they have too many other things to do. But this is not a viable situation long term; many of the issues regarding addresses - and not just the ones you mention - will have to be resolved globally. Either the RIRs will expand and improve their global policy making capabilities, or ICANN will have to step up, or if either of those options fails the ball will - as a matter of fact, not preference - fall into the US government's court. 

Just as Whois for DNS became a major, global issue because the trademark interests wanted it to be one, so Whois for IPv6 will become a global issue if and when a powerful interest group decides it is. Curran's pretense that this is a local matter pertaining to the US LEAs only is either a dishonest smokescreen or (what is more likely) yet another indication of how woefully out of touch with global governance politics some people in the tech community are. The US FBI has - as everyone knows - led global policy efforts to deal with Whois, registrar accreditation agreement, and copyright issues. If they are making noise about IPv6 and Whois you can bloody well bet it is a global policy issue and you are absolutely right that civil society needs to be thinking about how it can participate in a legitimate open policy dialogue and not allow the discussion to be dominated by one side (LEA or business or government, whatever). 

Milton L. Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
Internet Governance Project
http://blog.internetgovernance.org 

Our workshop on global governance of IPv4 address transfers was approved last week; in this area the RIR community is becoming reasonably cooperative and aware of the need for 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:35 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso; John Curran
> Subject: RE: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN
> 
> Carlos,
> 
> not only John Curran is in the same city as you are now. Also the FBI agents
> mentioned in the article that has caused you such consternation. Did you
> attend any of the sessions on the interactions between law enforcement
> and the unique-value coordinated identifiers of the Internet? What can you
> tell us about them?
> 
> I am very sad that you see as "canine defense" what is only probing whether
> you have used the opportunities to find about things in depth and then help
> translate and transfer the information and understanding to others.
> 
> A diplomat for your country told me many years ago that he used to do
> something similar to the type of questions you have posed  in this list in the
> WSIS and IGF process as a matter of policy: "to keep kicking the Americans in
> the shins", knowing that it is of little effect but keeps everybody busy with
> you. I hope you are keen to differentiate from  that, right?
> 
> I look forward to the enlightenment that will surely be extended to us
> through the lens of your research in depth and your experience.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Alejandro Pisanty
> 
> ! !! !!! !!!!
> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO
> 
> 
> 
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> 
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO
> 
> SMS +525541444475
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> 
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> 
> ________________________________________
> Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca]
> Enviado el: miércoles, 27 de junio de 2012 15:23
> Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran
> Asunto: Re: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN
> 
> John, thanks for you kind patience on this. I quote this article from
> CNet (which quotes you, incidentally), as example of the issues worrying
> the community for its technical and political implications:
> 
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-
> shield-criminals-from-police/?part=rss&tag=feed&subj
> 
> My question or concern presented to the board, to rephrase and simplify
> it, is: at which level should this issue be handled by our international
> governance structure for names, numbers and protocols? Should be Icann,
> since it is the organization recognized worldwide as the governance body
> for these? Or should Icann ignore it (as Thomas Marten implied) and let
> the problems, once present, be handled on an ad-hoc basis by one of its
> associated/supporting entities? Or even just wait and see?
> 
> If this is not clear, let me know. And I appreciate your mediation
> efforts on this.
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> 
> On 06/27/2012 02:17 PM, John Curran wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 2012, at 5:31 PM, c.a. wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for the detailed info, John. However, predating does not mean
> they are not under Icann oversight - as the very core mission of Icann states.
> In any case, I continue to believe Icann is the proper space for directing my
> question, malgré the lack of response - btw, I have copied my concern to
> Lacnic's policy discussion lists at almost tlhe same time I directed the question
> to the Icann board.
> >
> > c.a. -
> >
> > Could you clearly state your concern so that I may insure that it
> > is addressed at some point during this week's ICANN meeting?
> >
> > As best I can determine, you are concerned that US LEA is providing
> > input into the policy development process?  If that is not correct,
> > can you suggest a better phrasing?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > /John
> >
> > John Curran
> > President and CEO
> > ARIN
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 

-------------- 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