[governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ?
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Jun 27 08:44:54 EDT 2012
Dear Ian
I am willing to discuss your proposal, if we can put some flesh over it.
So the baseline is; ICANN, both in its DNS and IANA roles, becomes an
international organisation, through an express agreement among all
actors, which includes US and other govs, and it gets into a host
country agreement which gives it various immunities. Right?
Beyond that you seem to want ICANN to self-regulate and self-oversee,
without any separate oversight body. Which means that the ICANN board is
the final authority for everything.
Dont you think that having a body that can check possible abuse of power
by the ICANN board, and hold it accountable to some basic parametres and
general law/policies, would be useful/ necessary? Do you think that such
institutional separation of roles and power can be done within ICANN? If
so, how do you suggest to go about it?
(The international oversight body that I suggested can be considered a
part of ICANN, that isnt a big issue. The issue is whether to have such
a body as different from the board as the executive body, for basic
law/policy compliance related accountability, or not. And if so, how to
populate it, and how to structure its relationship with other parts of
ICANN, especially its board. And of course, how to ensure that it itself
does not abuse its power.)
Another issue is, how does ICANN define its mandate. Is it narrowly
defined as technical policy development, or is it indeed mandated to
take up wider 'public policy issues associated with the coordination and
management of critical Internet resources' (to quote Tunis agenda). If
not so mandated, is it now your proposal that it now takes up such a
role. That is an important issue to clarify.
I have read numerous statements by NCUC (one of the civil society
constituencies within the ICANN) that ICANN should employ only
technical, financial and operational criteria in arriving at its
decisions, and not go into public policy considerations? Are you now
opposed to any such assertion? What is the current stand of NCUC in this
regard?
Regards, parminder
On Tuesday 26 June 2012 09:31 AM, Ian Peter 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120627/055e05e1/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list