[governance] Oversight, was [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ?
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Jun 29 00:37:35 EDT 2012
On Friday 29 June 2012 02:17 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> Hi Parminder, more comments in line.
>
> *IP -- what you are getting at here became clearer to me in your
> response to McTim in which you stated "**Issues of competition
> policies, FoE, IP, security concerns..... are all public policy
> issues" . Now I agree they are of course, but I wouldn't for one
> second think they should be ICANN's business and these are vastly
> different in scope to the rather more narrow root zone authorisation
> scope which was where my comments began. I think ICANN should deal
> with this as previously suggested, and that no external oversight of
> the sort you are suggesting is necessary for that role. On the more
> general issue of how we deal with IP, FoE, security etc -- that's an
> entirely different discussion and my personal belief is that ICANN is
> not appropriately structured to deal with issues other than those
> specifically related to DNS administration.
> *
Ian, when I list the above public policy issues *in terms of CIR
oversight role*, I mean only the manner in which they are, as you put
it,'*specifically related to DNS administration'* . To mediate these
issues in relation to DNS administration, or the larger CIR management,
is the definition of CIR 'oversight' role. When as you say ICANN should
not itself do it, who should do it, and how the outcomes are enabled to
inform ICANN's CIR related technical operations? parminder
> **
> 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:
>
> Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a
> "Autonomous Internet" ? 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20120629/60c6c23d/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