[governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ?
Carlos A. Afonso
ca at cafonso.ca
Tue Jun 26 06:13:22 EDT 2012
Grande Ian, your questions and proposal are quite relevant. However, we
have to remind ourselves that the AoC was an agreement of behavior and
procedures between a contractor (Icann) and its client (DOC/NTIA), while
the GAC has (or should have) an advisory role like any other advisory
committee, which makes your proposal quite hard for the USG to swallow.
This is of course unfortunate, because really the USG "control of the
root zone file" obsession is not such a big deal anymore given the fact
that Icann has advanced reasonably in its efforts to enhance pluralist
and international participation, and carrying out a solution like you
propose would defuse the other "pole" -- those who believe that outside
of the ITU there is no intelligent life. But how to convince the USG and
the US Congress that this craze no longer makes sense?
As to why ISOC, RIRs etc do not dare to make proposals, there is a
frequent recurrence of the other "pole": "do not fix what is not
broken"... Witness the recent article by Vint Cerf in the NYT
ressurrecting the "devil versus good doers" parable.
frt rgds
--c.a.
On 06/26/2012 02:55 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>
>
>> From: Avri<avri at acm.org>
>> Reply-To:<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Avri<avri at acm.org>
>> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:28:07 +0200
>> To:<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous
>> Internet" ?
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Isn't the Affirmation of Commitment a step in that direction?
>>
>>
>> avri
>>
>
>
> Well yes - in terms of some other issues. Interesting to read Paul Levins
> account of this today -
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120625_a_history_of_holding_icann_to_account
> /
>
> But has ICANN, ISOC, RIRs, IANA or any other relevant body ever formally
> raised change in this particular area (root zone authorisation) with DOC, in
> the formal way in which change was suggested on the JPA agreement which
> eventually led to the AOC? Has any alternative proposal to the
> unsatisfactory status quo ever been proposed by any of these relevant
> bodies?
>
> Ian Peter
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list