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

Carlos A. Afonso ca at cafonso.ca
Tue Jun 26 06:23:48 EDT 2012 

BTW, thanks for point out the excellent review on these issues by Paul 
Levins.

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 06/26/2012 07:13 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> 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