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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Isn't the Affirmation of Commitment a step in that direction?


avri


Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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