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

[McTim]

hi,

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:46 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>

<SNIP>

>
> 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.

Does it?

> 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.

I thought John explained it rather well.

 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.

There is a 3rd option (at least) that I can think of.  That there is
no "larger public policy issue that needs to be addressed" here.
WHOIS policies are made by each RIR community.  If LEAs have an issue
with WHOIS, they ought to take it up in the appropriate forum, which
is not ICANN itself but associated ICANN "processes".


>
> 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).

First, I think it is useful to understand what, if any, public policy needs to
be addressed (pun intended) that is not currently covered by policy.
I am not seeing one.

>
> 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).cy for

As John described, IF a global policy needs ratification, that is done
by the ICANN BoD.

There is no global policy under consideration here, so the ICANN Board
(perhaps understandably)
had no reaction, as they have no role to play.


>
> The civil society involved with ICANN, especially NCUC, may also express
> whether they agree with this new expanded role of ICANN,

no expanded role needed.  Policies are made at Regional level in this
case.  NCUC folk are involved in those regional policy deliberations.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- 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