[governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ?
Ian Peter
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Wed Jun 27 16:58:42 EDT 2012
Hi Parminder, comments inline
From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:14:54 +0530
To: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Cc: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a
"Autonomous Internet" ?
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?
IP yes, and the host country agreement seems to have broad support as a
step for ICANN across this list
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.
IP Yes, subject to a body of international law and its charter. The Board
is elected (mostly, perhaps it should be fully) and as such provides a good
level of accountability. If there were to be an oversight, I think it should
be something like a High Court or Federal Court that determines the
lawfulness of ICANN actions when and if required certainly not another
elected body or governmental body.
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?
IP Yes, see above
(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.)
IP see above.
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.
IP. A difficult one, and the ³thick vs thin² ICANN debates have run for a
long time. I don¹t have an immediate answer, but I don¹t see it as
advantageous to have numerous bodies each dealing with a little bit of the
picture. Where there are gaps I think it is at least worth considering
whether the appropriate way to fill them is to expand the ICANN brief. But
there will always be other bodies with specific area of interest (WIPO etc)
and I don¹t think that¹s a bad thing
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?
IP although I think I am still nominally a member of NCUC like others I
was asked to join to support the work of the constituency I removed myself
from the mailing list several years ago because I was disinterested in much
of the administrivia that seems to dominate ICANN constituency
considerations. So I cant help here. My non-involvement does not suggest
that what ICANN does is unimportant I think it is, but I also think that
what bank tellers do in their organisations is important too. But in both
cases I think their work and daily procedures is of little interest to me
(until such time as something goes wrong of course). In any case, clearly
ICANN raises public policy issues and these should be discussed.
IP -As a last remark on this my suggestion that ICANN be responsible for
these issues is not really an endorsement of the way it currently is. I find
it very bloated and quite eccentric. However, it does involve all
stakeholders and genuinely tries to represent their interests.
On Tuesday 26 June 2012 09:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous
> Internet" ? 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/20120628/0a1290e0/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