[governance] "Oversight"

Fri Jun 8 16:08:39 EDT 2012

Parminder,

As you recall but perhaps not others relatively new to the list, some of us were calling for an 'international framework convention for the Internet' some time back, to put in place just the kinds of things you are suggesting; i.e. a legitimized international agreement around the Internet.  That may be the wrong name - and names matter so we better be extra careful here or we end up back in fear of a hypothetical treaty somehow messing up the net. We didn't have many agreeing with us back then; and I'm not sure we will have many more today. But I agree with you that absent a framework, some of us were predicting -accurately it turned out - that global Internet governance issues would not go away, but instead discussions would go on and on and...well here we still are, sigh.

So I certainly agree with you, it couldn't hurt to more concretely outline some of the core tenets in what such a framework, or treaty, or whatever, might be, as you begin to do in your last email. Whether that evolves eventually into something that states sign on to, or just the people of the planet/civil society, well that is an independent variable I can't determine various probabilities for just yet. But there is room for discussion.

However, and this goes back to the 'devil you know'/poker argument, likely if that agreement is framed -just - by people in the community that have not yet actually demonstrated - working code - to back up the fine words, then while it may be necessary, it will not be sufficient.

IF it is assuming or proposing any technical changes in the system.

So maybe we also need some global distributed rootsigning hackathon(s) and simulations to help out Norbert and his instant task force. Of course the prof suggests - further research is required! : )

Or that is happening in parallel to discussions among civil society on a framework, or whatever the thing is called. Which may some day become a state-backed treaty.

Lee

________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 12:57 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight"

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<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>] on behalf of David Conrad [drc at virtualized.org<mailto:drc at virtualized.org>]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 8:51 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto: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/20120608/9c93ee01/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