[governance] Re: [bestbits] NTIA announcment

Mon Mar 17 04:28:46 EDT 2014

Dear Jeanette

What I meant was that should now focus much more on how the transition
should take place, and what we want to transition to, rather than just
making a convincing argument that the transition should happen.

This is probably just a subtle difference, as the NTIA announcement is
not a huge surprise. But there is still a big difference between civil
society having clear proposals for how we think these functions should
be managed, and by whom, and based on which principles as opposed to
just emphasising that we we want the status quo to change.

We might also want to differentiate between general principles for IG,
and specific principles for DNS and root zone management... but I need
to think about that more...and also think in a more differentiated way
about further evolution of the IG eccosystem.  Different types of
decisions and coordination need not be made in the same way,  or in the
same places. We always say that the system is distributed, and some of
us say that is a good thing. I think having the US oversight issues out
of the way makes it possible for us to spend more time taking about what
replaces it.

Civil society tends to lump all its concerns together, which is often
not very helpful. If we want to get concrete outputs from NetMundial we
need to propose solutions and new models which are achievable and
creative. This is not so easy. But there are a few on the table. If we
can get consensus, more or less, on those before the event it will make
us much more influential.

But I guess I am simply stating the obvious.

Anriette

On 16/03/2014 00:11, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>
> Hi Anriette,
>
> why do you think we need to rethink the agenda for NetMundial? Hasn't
> the future of the IANA functions always been part of it?
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
>> Personally I think that the really interesting, but also challenging
>> outcome of this is that it means we need to rethink the NetMundial
>> Agenda and what we really want to get out of it.
>>
>> What is so good though is that the conversation with governments, and
>> private institutions, the technical community etc. can now focus on the
>> substance of how decisions are made, and how participation is ensured,
>> and accountability and transparency maintained, and what principles are
>> used in making these decisions.
>>
>> The location of ICANN in the US and the relationship with the US has
>> been a bottleneck in talking about 'enhanced coopration' etc. etc. This
>> is not going to make it easier.
>>
>> The challenge of dealing with governments who desire more control, and
>> those nongovernmental institutions involved in inernet governance who
>> are not sufficiently accountable, and not operating based on commonly
>> understood public interest and rights-based principles, remain.. and is
>> even greater actually. And a further challenge will be to ensure that
>> ICANN, while I think has been positively proactive, and in some senses
>> opportunistic (which is not a bad thing) since the NSA revelation, does
>> not, riding on increased legitimacy, unduly expand its scope, reach,
>> power.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> *DRAFT Best Bits welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key
>> internet domain name functions*
>>
>> Members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the announcement made by the
>> United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and
>> Information Administration (NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key
>> internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community
>> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>.'**
>>
>>
>> NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as
>> the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The
>> fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has
>> not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and
>> debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.
>>
>> We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a
>> multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society,
>> governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention
>> just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision
>> making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains
>> the openness of the internet.
>>
>> This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for democratising internet
>> governance, and ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of
>> all who are affected by  internet policy making and standard setting are
>> still evolving. A transition away from US government oversight does not
>> in itself guarantee inclusion, transparency and accountability or
>> protection of the public interest in the management of DNS and the root
>> zone.  Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in the
>> right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the
>> evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly
>> important for stakeholders from developing countries.
>>
>> We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
>> Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the
>> transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder
>> processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary
>> consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also
>> recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition
>> can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting
>> on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br
>> <http://www.netmundial.br/> ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/1b70d5a7/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