[governance] "Oversight"

[John Curran]

On Jun 6, 2012, at 2:56 AM, parminder wrote:

> That exactly is why technical standards development and CIR requires political oversight. How can, what you call as, the 'technical community' decide that such a matter of utmost importance to people and countries outside the US is simply 'political window dressing'. It is ridiculous. And whose cost/benefit analysis is it? Who decides the social and political costs and benefits? Whose political and social interests does this 'technical community', which thinks as you say it thinks, represent. If they think they are experts in technical matters, can they, by a similar logic, allow the possibilities that others may know more than them about social, economic, cultural and political matters, and the corresponding costs and benefits.
> 
> This is a misuse of 'technical power' which really is no technical power, it is real economic, social and political power masquerading as technical power, hiding behind technical people and the so called 'technical community' in order to gain some legitimacy, or rather to avoid the blame of illegitimacy.

Parminder - 
 
   If a clear consensus statement of political or social goals in this area had
   existed at the time, I am very confident that the Internet technical community
   would have taken it fully into consideration at the time of development.

   Please do not claim that "oversight" is needed when there is a lack of 
   agreement on requirements at the governmental level; instead, work on 
   getting that level of agreement regarding the social or political norms so 
   that those working on technology can aim for something which isn't a 
   moving target.
>> However, I might suggest the focus on DNSSEC in this regard is misplaced. As mentioned in a previous note, DNSSEC merely provides the capability to verify that a DNS response hasn't been modified from the point at which the data was signed by the private key holder to the point where it was validated (typically by ISPs). The data first must be created before it can be signed.  Once signed it still must be published.  Even if the US were to go "rogue", root servers and caches outside the US would hold the pre-rogue root zone and it would be straightforward (technically at least) for a new signing facility to be established in Geneva, Beijing, or wherever else is felt to be more trustworthy. 
> This suggestion is like beginning to set up a fire department when the house is on fire. Actors dont go wholesale rogue in the manner you picture it, neither is such a radical from-the-scratch response possible in the real world. This is a bit of a technical construction of the problem and its solution. Actors go rogue in stages, carefully, for their rogue-ness to be sustainable. As US has been going rogue on IP related international domain seizures, (and attempting to formalise it through SOPA), as in the attempt at 'Internet Kill Switch' legislation, as evident with ACTA, with use of Stuxnet and flame, formalising un-disclosed security relationships with google, facebook, twitter etc, with software companies......  What is your criterion for declaring US gone rogue? And the drastic one time solution you suggest - when the going-rogue event has taken place - accordingly doesnt happen. The powerful actor going rogue is too smart for that. (This is also the simple reason why UG gov's NTIA acts as it does, often looking so much better to the global audience than many other US gov arms.) At no point it does anything that makes the cost/ benefit equation for other powerful players such as to go for really drastic steps, and thus dominant power gets accepted and established.... Simple socio-political insights. No rocket science really. 

  Again, you assert that the USG has effectively violated widely accepted norms
  as further evidence that it should not hold a unique position in oversight of the 
  Internet critical resources.  I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion (that any
  single government should not hold a unique role in oversight) but only because
  I believe it is clearly evident if indeed a stable effective multilateral oversight
  can be achieved.

  However, the fact that I'd support your conclusion over the long-term does not 
  mean any agreement that the the premise that USG has violated accepted norms 
  in this area.   If there really are well-understood and universally accepted norms
  among the governments of the world, then there should be clear agreements on 
  these principles regarding Internet Governance. 

  For example, one can argue that it is not appropriate for a country to take action
  against Internet infrastructure in its territory solely to enforce its laws against
  parties in other countries jurisdiction.  Want to solve the Internet governance
  logjam?   Find a way for governments to have a conversion about that principle
  (i.e. not using unilateral actions against Internet infrastructure as a means of 
  extraterritorial law enforcement) with real multi-stakeholder participation (incl.
  civil society, businesses, etc) such that it results in some form of binding 
  agreement among governments on that principle.

  Once we have such agreements, ensuring that the Internet actually functions in a
  conforming manner (from both protocols and technical coordination) is easy.  In the 
  absence of such agreements, it appears that everyone complains that the Internet
  technical community is "getting it wrong" when the real problem is the much more 
  common situation of lack of any actual agreement among governments.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimers:  My views alone.   These thoughts are provided AS-IS, and while they
appear to be within normal conventions, no warranty is expressed or implied. 












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