[governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ?

Tue Jun 26 00:01:29 EDT 2012

Parminder suggests a structure to take over the unilateral USG role in root
zone management (among other things).

I have a different proposal altogether  just strike it. The oversight
function is completely unnecessary, and there enough checks and balances in
current procedures to not need such a role.

Just get rid of it. Make a decision that it is in the best interests of the
internet not to have the perception of unilateral control of any functions.

If the USG insists on maintaining a role, sign  a similarly worded agreement
with GAC. 

If nothing is done, the default solutions governments will come up with are
likely to be far worse.

Which is why we should act. I get frustrated by those organisations and
individuals who are in a position to take a lead on such matters but instead
do nothing. A pro-active stance is needed!

This is just part of the DNS, as Louis Pouzin points out. The current
appropriate forum for governance in DNS matters is ICANN. Improvement of
ICANN is another matter, but we do not need another body- or another
function or an anachronistic agreement or set of agreements - to get in the
way of sensible internet governance.

The Internet has grown up, some old procedures are now not only unneccessary
but unhealthy. For the health of the Internet, we should get rid of them.

Ian Peter

From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, parminder
<parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:25:12 +0530
To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a
"Autonomous Internet"  ?

On Monday 25 June 2012 02:16 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>  
> Parminder,
> 
> On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:36 PM, parminder wrote:
>   
>  
>>  
>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same
>>>> safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight mechanism?
>>>>         
>>>>  
>>>  
>>> They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete example
>>> of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at one?
>>>       
>>>  
>>  
>> I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model and I you want I can
>> re state it.
>>     
>>  
>  
> 
> I was actually looking for a concrete (ideally peer-reviewed) proposal or,
> more preferably, an operational example or prototype, not an outline of lofty
> goals or possible models.  Does such exist?
>   

In socio-political arena, the method of seeking 'solutions' or the 'way
forward'  normally is that we first try to agree on larger ideas and
principles,  and then progressively move towards the details. Those
approaching this debate from the technical side must respect this general
method as they want their method of deciding on technical issues respected.
The main broad points of the model that I had proposed are

(1) An international treaty clearly lays out the scope, procedures and
limits of an international CIR oversight body, as it provides it with the
required authority

(2) ICANN itself becomes an international technical body under the same
statute as above, and it enters into a host country agreement with the
hosting country, which could be the US

(3) The same treaty sanctifies the broad principles of the current
distributed CIR and tech standards development model (ICANN, RIRs, IETF etc)

(4) The oversight body is a stand-alone body set up under the mentioned
treaty - outside the UN system but perhaps with some loose coupling with it,
in a manner that it is not subject to typical UN rules. It would ab initio
evolve its own rules, procedures etc.

(5) The oversight body can have 15-20 members, with equitable regional
representation. Within each region the country from which members would come
will get rotated. ( Here, we will need some degree of innovation to ensure
that although the member will have some clear relationship/ backing of the
government, her selection/ affirmation would require a broader national
process. Some linkages with highest level national technical institutions
can also be explored. More ideas are welcome here.)

(6) The role of the oversight body will be minimal, clearly constrained by
the relevant international law, exercised through clearly detailed
procedures, and based on a sufficiently high majority, if not consensus.

(7) Its decision will be subject to a separate judicial process  (can look
at a possible role for the International court of justice)

>  
> I'll admit I'm still not clear what you believe the "international oversight
> mechanism" should do.

More or less what the US gov does in relation to CIR management.
>  
>  You've been talking about how the evil USG will trample the contents of the
> root zone.  Presumably, the "international oversight mechanism" will be
> overseeing the operations of root zone modification as the USG does today.

yes
>  
> Since those operations must be based in some country, it isn't clear to me how
> the "international oversight mechanism" would be able to stop that country's
> government from going rogue and doing what you believe the evil USG will do.
>   

No, it doesnt happen that way at all. Host country agreement and the
authorising international law are there precisely to prevent such a thing.
Today, if the US 'interferes' with root zone operation, it breaks no law,
neither domestic nor international. To forcibly break into an international
body's premises which is protected by host country agreement and based on
international treaty, and interfering in its work, will be an extraordinary
defiance of international law, the kind which even the US doesnt do :). It
can be subject to further international processes like those from the UN and
the international court of justice. BTW, the fact that the US is one of the
countries with the uneasiest of relationships with the international court
of justice may be  a good reason to seek ICANN's and the oversight body's
hosting outside the US. However, perhaps for, historical continuity's sake
US would do as well.

regards, parminder 

>  
> 
> Regards,
> -drc
> 
> 
>   

____________________________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120626/e77989e9/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