[governance] "Oversight"

[John Curran]

On Jun 7, 2012, at 1:00 PM, parminder wrote:
> 
> I take form the discussion that you and many of the so called tech community are convinced that US government cannot do anything bad to the Internet's architecture vis a vis what has been called the CIRs and the associated phenomenon.

I do not know know about others, but I have never said that, and would
disagree with it.  I believe the the USG, like all political entities, is indeed
capable of "doing bad things" with respect to the Internet infrastructure,
but that the particular organization in the USG, e.g. DoC/NTIA, has a very
solid track record in not meddling despite potential ability to do so.

> According to you the system is too well distributed for this to happen. Now, let me accept for the sake of my present argument that this is indeed true. If so, why would you and others be against giving a UN body exactly the same role as the US gov has at present, as long as the relevant guarantees that the distributed system will be maintained as present vide an international agreement, which inter alia cannot be changed without US and its allies agreeing to any change.  Can you please specifically answer this question.

I am uncertain if that body and the infrastructure oversight it establishes
will be any more stable than the present system, which has worked very
well over the years, and has even shown less and less USG control.

> While as you say, that UN body will not be able to do anything bad to the Internet, as you claim at present US government cannot do, such an arrangement will satisfy so many in the non US world, and then we can have a smooth cordial sail for ever, and much of the acrimony which so regularly arises on this count will be gone. Is it not a worthy goal to seek.

A wonderful goal, and certainly one worth _evolving_ towards.

> In other words, why does an arrangement looks so innocent when when in the hands of the US government, and the same arrangement when shifted to an international body backed by inviolable international law  becomes the resounding shrill cry of 'UN control of the Internet'.  Can you help me understand this apparent paradox.

I have yet to see any arrangement proposed by an international body in sufficient
detail to judge it.  I will note the care that went into DNS root and DNSSEC; do we
really believe something of similar calibre would be created?

> And there can be no doubt that US law and exercise of US's executive power is much more liable to arbitrary use and possible sudden changes than international law and its execution.

Agreed that the potential exists, particularly with non-DoC US Departments in the 
that statement.  I do not actually know if the overall probability is higher given some
of the abuses that have occurred in international organizations.

> The fact that many US based and pro US actors simply dont accept this simple and patently clear fact is quite, well, bugging to most non US actors, if not outright disrespectful of equality of people, groups and countries, which is a very very serious thing.

Understandable, just as the tendency to view the USG only as a single entity
(when the actual situation is much more complex) discounts the remarkable 
progress in impartial oversight that has been made to date.

> One should realise that an international law/ treaty based organisation simply cannot but act in strict adherence to the law, and the law cannot be changed without the consent of all, or at least of a very big majority, and certainly certainly not without the consent of US, EU etc. Be absolutely assured of this....

Excuse me?  Are you saying that all treaty organizations act purely within
their constraints and abuses never occur?   I can sent you some news
articles if you like to read up in this area.

> So creating this spectre of a China along with an Iran suddenly starting to dictate how the Internet will be run is such a big a lie and deliberate delusion, and it is also such an affront to people's intelligence. At the same time I am all for civil society to be very watchful of what happens at the UN or ITU etc as we are watchful what happens with the US gov or India gov. But a sense of balance will do us all good. 

Indeed , in that sense of balance we should remember that we don't have
any abuses in oversight (as far as I can determine) to date, so we're talking 
about changing things to prevent abuses.  I think it is important to carefully
balance the present reality with the theoretical perfect international treaty 
mechanism and honestly consider the probabilities of abuse.

Thanks,
/John

Disclaimers: My views alone.  Global organizations may have a much larger
and distorted presence than reflections in mirror would otherwise indicate.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120607/3241252e/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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