[governance] "Oversight"

Fri Jun 8 12:57:00 EDT 2012

On Friday 08 June 2012 08:52 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> As more of a political than technical guy...at least hard-core 
> Internet techies would say so : ) -  again permit me to play 
> interpreter/historian; which also has implications for Norbert's 
> recent suggestions:
>
> David said:
>
> - a viable alternative has not been identified;

I think civil society should identify it. Civil society is by definition 
the non institutional space... All those alredy too thickly involved 
with IG institutions - and I include  ICANN and ISOC here, and of course 
ITU too, are unlikely to do so.
>
> My comment: Exactly
>
> David said:
> - historical experiences by the Internet technical community with one 
> such international body (the ITU) were less than positive and have 
> soured folks in that community on all international bodies.
>
> snip
>
> Still, I'm sure many in the 'Internet technical community' remember 
> having to literally and not figuratively fight off UN (ITU) efforts 
> not to regulate the net, but to kill it.
>
> Yeah it is all good to say we should let bygones be bygones, but.

As proposed by me in the earlier email, lets insist that ICANN/ IETF 
models be officially sanctified by the same agreement that 
internationalises oversight. That would, to a good extent, take care of 
this issue isnt it. That is best way to resist undue demands and efforts 
of ITU, isnt it.
>
> Anyway, point remains, the nuances we are addressing here are all 
> super-important and we/you need to think precisely about what you/we 
> are aiming/asking for.

I have said it, others may comment, propose alternatives, whatever... 
but we need to move from where we are.....
>
> Norbert's suggestions are a good starting point for further 
> discussion, in a 'put your (engineering) money where your claimed 
> priorities are' way.

Internationalising oversight is very important imperative for many/ most 
countries, and I have no doubt that they will put in all the money that 
is needed. No doubt at all. Lets leave this argument out.

> IF noone is putting up alternatives to the present, then the present 
> continues to the future.

Exactly.

> You may or may not share McTim's view that change cannot be 
> made/implemented,

No, I dont, Never had sympathy for such fatalistic views.

> but if no demonstrably viable alternative exists, then we remain where 
> we are.

I dont know what demonstration means.... I cant demonstrate oversight 
models without they being actually accepted and implemented. But 
logically and conceptually, yes... that is what I am trying.
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Conrad 
> [drc at virtualized.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 07, 2012 8:51 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] "Oversight"
>
> Parminder,
>
> On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:00 AM, 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.
>
> To clarify, a think a more accurate view of my position would be that, 
> like with MAD nuclear doctrine, it is entirely possible for the USG to 
> do something bad, however the potential repercussions are more than 
> sufficient to discourage such actions.
>
>> 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.
>
> Why would you think I'm against such a role? While I was at APNIC back 
> in mid-90s, I actually argued against the US unilaterally asserting it 
> had the ability and prerogative to establish Internet governance 
> policies via the white/green papers. Unfortunately, the governments of 
> the AP region at the time couldn't be bothered to even discuss 
> potential alternatives (after all, the world was moving to the OSI 
> protocol suite and this TCP/IP stuff was just going to fade away).
>
> However, being new to this discussion and largely ignorant of the 
> relevant international bodies, I'm unaware of actual potential 
> alternatives (well, other than the ITU).  Which UN body are you proposing?
>
>> 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.
>
> While this is outside my bailiwick (I tend to be viewed as a technical 
> person rather than a political one), a couple of potential 
> explanations I can think of:
>
> - a viable alternative has not been identified;
> - an international body can be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as being 
> insufficiently nimble to adjust to the rapid changes inherent in 
> Internet technologies;
> - an international body can be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as having 
> the ability to impose policies that would impact negatively impact 
> Internet operational efficiency; and/or
> - historical experiences by the Internet technical community with one 
> such international body (the ITU) were less than positive and have 
> soured folks in that community on all international bodies.
>
> However, I'm just guessing (and note I do not necessarily agree with 
> any/all of the above).
>
>> 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. 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,
>
> I have to admit seeing a bit of irony here: in the past (both while I 
> was at APNIC and as IANA general manager), I was in numerous private 
> meetings with government officials in which they told me that while 
> publicly, they will continue to rail against the USG's "control" of 
> the Internet, privately, they welcome it since the know how to work 
> with the USG, don't trust (or perhaps more accurately, have less 
> ability to influence) the alternatives, and it's the devil they know. 
>  However, that was some time ago, so perhaps the positions of those 
> individuals have changed.
>
> More pragmatically, as I'm sure you're aware, there is a perception, 
> particularly within at least part of the Internet technical community, 
> that international bodies have in the past retarded innovation in the 
> telecommunications sector in order to maintain the political/economic 
> status quo, much to the detriment of human society as a whole. 
> Regardless of the accuracy of this perception, I suspect unless/until 
> concrete guarantees can be provided that this won't happen again, 
> there will be resistance to change towards an international body.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120608/69133a39/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