[governance] Report of ICANN 46 Beijing meeting (1)

Tue Apr 9 01:16:21 EDT 2013

There has been such deliberations by Mr. Naresh from India about the
role of public internet cafes, telecenters and local ISPs. Again, we
come to the basic discussion that yes, every person using the Internet
can have a domain name or multiple domain names, a static ip or a
block of ip's, but how well that is true is still questionable to the
division that how many of these are government, private sector,
academia, technical community, individual domain users etc. The other
facet of this discussion is the right to access any kind of content
online and that that content is available on a website with a domain
name and/or IP address. The right to access that domain and IP is a
discussion area.

The ISP, unless its a community cooperative or community interest run
service (not the case in Urban centres), they are usually commercial
companies and may buy domain names and IP addresses and sell it to
people in their target market. We have to thus have to understand the
contracted party processes of how ICANN sells domains to the
intermediaries that are then responsible for selling down to the
consumers or users. ICANN frees itself from the challenges of law
enforcement and I believe the contracts pass on the liability to
contracted/noncontracted parties. So ISPs would fall somewhere in that
bracket of contracted and non-contracted parties but ISPs do not fall
into the remit of ICANN because the market structure of domains and
IPs places intermediaries in between ICANN and the people, user,
consumer and however you want to place it.

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> Thanks Fouad, who is sitting next next seat to me now.
>
> To follow, I agree with you and that is why I added "(within ICANN remit)"
> to the original question which did not contain reference to ICANN space at
> all if I remember
> correctly.
>
> Bu even so, the use of Domain name and IP addresses do impact the end users
> who have no idea about these explicitly.
>
> I just spoke with one guy from Brazil, received ICANN fellowship like me,
> who is running a small ISP in Brazil, Port Alegre, and asked him how many
> ISPs are there in Barzil. 3,000. He also mentioned about the Indian LAN
> House,
> village level Internet Cafe but providing some connectivity around, I assume
> (correct me if I am wrong), and how do you find the best interest of ISPs
> globally could be a challenge equally.
>
> izumi
>
>
>
> 2013/4/9 Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
>>
>> One thing to remember about ICANN is that the addressing and name
>> space is just like a phone book and there seems to be a continuous
>> problem of falling out of scope of ICANN's mandate which remains the
>> domain name and IP addressing space. The broader internet governance
>> and internet public policy issues do incorporate to a certain access
>> such critical internet resources and their sharing in discussions but
>> I tend to become uncomfortable to how much emphasis is laid down in to
>> ICANN as if it was responsible for engaging and providing internet
>> access to 2 billion users. Its only one part of the stack and not
>> actually the whole stack.
>>
>> Best
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>> > I came to ICANN Beijing meeting, its 46th meeting since 1999.
>> > I stopped coming to ICANN meeting after 2010 Brussels which was
>> > 38th. So I missed almost three years, 7 meetings.  I have participated
>> > almost all ICANN meetings except 2 meeting till #36, making 34.
>> >
>> > This time, since I am with ALS, Internet Users Network, Tokyo,
>> > ICANN offered us the travel fund to join APRALO AGM as well
>> > as AtLarge other activities. Thank you ICANN.
>> >
>> > Having been away for three years from ICANN, certain portions look
>> > very new, while other areas have not beeb changed much.
>> >
>> > One thing in particular is, the state of activities of AtLarge seem
>> > to be much more strengthened and well-organized than, say
>> > 3 years ago, or let's say far more than 10 years ago when the current
>> > ALS/RALO/ALAC structure was proposed.
>> >
>> > A good example was the AtLarge meeting with the Board this morning.
>> > Well attended, not in terms of numbers of the people from the Board
>> > and in the room, but well listened, discussed, on a rather open and
>> > equal basis between the Board and AtLarge. It may sound normal for
>> > those who do not know much about the dynamics of ICANN, but
>> > it is a significant change from the days I know of them, just three
>> > years
>> > ago.
>> >
>> > I made the following comment there.
>> >
>> > How can AtLarge find the interest of 2 billion Internet users (within
>> > ICANN
>> > remit)? [was asked by a Board member]
>> >
>> > That is our mutual question or mission – if ICANN really wants to become
>> > what it claims to be: as “bottom up and multi-stakeholder” organization,
>> > including the users or public. ALAC's 3R White Paper is a good direction
>> > forward.
>> >
>> > Having AtLarge Summit with 200 or 400 people may not be a sufficient,
>> > but
>> > necessary step.  Can UN function without general assembly?
>> >
>> > ALAC used to be an additional portion of ICANN, supplemental, but not in
>> > the
>> > main stream – say till 3 or 4 years ago. I think it’s time to make
>> > AtLatge
>> > as one of the three or four pillars of ICANN, mainstreaming this more.
>> >
>> > Similar to the Civil Society engagement in IGF process, AtLarge,
>> > Individual
>> > user component of ICANN, has been facing the challenges - especially
>> > from
>> > other stakeholders.
>> >
>> > It is clear now that ICANN has put more resources to AtLarge area, as
>> > well
>> > as other areas.
>> >
>> > YET, I also have a concern that ICANN is learning more towards the
>> > interest
>> > of the Domain Name business, especially through the introduction of the
>> > new
>> > gTLDs.
>> >
>> > It really remains to be seen, and, it is quite relevant to our work
>> > here, at
>> > IGC, as well.
>> >
>> > Will try to write more later,  I have to listen to the discussion now
>> > ;-)
>> >
>> > izumi
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards.
>> --------------------------
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>>
>
>
>
> --
>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> Japan
> www.anr.org

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa

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