[governance] Oversight, was [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ?
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Jun 28 02:46:09 EDT 2012
Ian,
Thanks for your comments.
Just to summarize or paraphrase areas of agreements which can help us
move forward. You agree that ICANN should become an international
organisation, cutting its special links with the US, and enter into a
host country agreement (for which you say there is a rough consensus on
this list). You also agree that this will require some kind of an
international law and international charter, which therefore should be
worked towards. I understand that AoC is not the kind of thing we are
asking for here, which Carlos defined as "an agreement of behavior and
procedures between a contractor (Icann) and its client (DOC/NTIA)". We
seek a 'really' international law and status for ICANN.
Perhaps we can park these two elements has having a good degree of
agreement among the proposals for dealing with the oversight issue that
we have seen lately in this group.
This then brings us to the issue of how to deal with the 'oversight'
function - defined as dealing with public policy issues concerning CIR
management (which includes names, numbers and protocols). This issue
also pointedly comes to the fore from the discussion in the FBI-DEA-IPv6
thread. I am a surprised at the lack of clarity even among veterans of
this space about who deals with such a key public policy issue and how,
with clear opposite views whether ICANN should be dealing with it or
not. We know that important public policy issues connecting directly to
CIR management will keep on arising in the future, and perhaps,
multiplying in number. We need to foresight how to deal with this
situation. It is not possible to sweep this important issues under the
carpet.
So, either we have a (1) separate mechanism for 'oversight' as defined
above, or (2) ICANN takes up the role of directly confronting such
public policy issues, and correspondingly being accountable for them.
Many of these issues are just too important for us to allow
institutional vacuums to exist around them, and they will be
increasingly more so.
This then is the key 'oversight' question left to be discussed.
You dont want a separate oversight mechanism, and so you must explain
how ICANN would systematically address the various public policy issues,
and not duck them, or try to find ways around them as it often typically
does (including in the case of Carlos's recent poser to the ICANN on
the FBI-IPv6 issue).
ICANN has to clearly accept and define its larger public policy role
with regard to CIR management, something which doesnt exist at present.
Correspondingly, it also has to show how its structures and functioning
match this new larger role. (At present, its structure is developed in
terms of a narrower technical policy role, and you will accept that the
requirements of the two kind of roles can be different).
The civil society involved with ICANN, especially NCUC, may also express
whether they agree with this new expanded role of ICANN, whereby it
would, itself, fully get into public policy considerations in making its
decisions. This, as per my understanding, is contrary to NCUC's stand
till now. There are some key NCUC members on this list who can clarify.
parminder
On Thursday 28 June 2012 02:28 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> 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 "thick vs thin" ICANN debates have run
> for a long time. I don't have an immediate answer, but I don't 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 don't think that's 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/b2a16856/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