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

[John Curran]

Ian -

Good point... (I was reading and replying via a mobile phone and misread the level of quoting.)

In any case, I hope the information is useful.   ICANN as a simply a mechanism for technical
coordination of Internet identifiers is relatively understandable;
i.e. a body which performs that sole task, while taking accepted
social and public policy norms into
consideration and working
under broad and transparent oversight by the Internet community
in its greatest sense (individuals, governments, civil society,
business, etc.)

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

On Jun 30, 2012, at 12:15 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:

Hi John,

You are actually responding to Parminder’s query here, but thanks for the input!

Ian


________________________________
From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:54:51 +0000
To: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] Oversight, was [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet"  ?

On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

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.

Ian -

  Without passing judgement on the current system for technical coordination
  of Internet addresses, I will attempt to describe how it accommodates public
  policy issues as they are encountered.

  Public policy issues do indeed come up in the policy discussions at the
  Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), but these issues are taken along with other
  factors (such as technical ability to route IP addresses, business concerns
  about availability of IP addresses for service providers, civil society concerns
  about privacy, etc.) and all are considered in the formation of policy.  This has
  led to policies which consider various public policy issues (for example, in the
  ARIN region, residential privacy concerns cause that information to be redacted
  from the public Whois directory per community developed policy.)

  Each RIR has its own community which considers policy proposals, and those
  that are supported are adopted via the processes in the region.   While that can
  (and does) lead to slightly different policies between regions, it is also a strength
  in that policies that are felt to be important can be adopted by a region without
  having to await a global policy process.  "Good" policies do tend to get adopted
  in multiple regions, and global policies are indeed possible if all of the regions
  agree to the same policy text.

  At present, there are no policies in the ARIN region which directly address the
  matter which the FBI raised regarding potential lack of incentive for accuracy in
  future IPv6 Whois information.   In fact, there are already policies which require
  accurate information to be present, but the issue being raising is whether such
  industry-led self-governance policies will suffice for insuring that the Whois
  information remains accurate (in the absence of need to obtain new address
  blocks as exists today with IPv4.)

  Considering the public policy issues involved with the potential of a top-down
  or "regulatory" approach might be necessary, but that type of solution could
  easily be beyond ICANN's limited mandate of technical coordination.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120630/4438112b/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