[discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Apr 2 15:00:18 UTC 2014
On Wednesday 19 March 2014 06:25 AM, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> the logical next step is to ask you to resend your message complete
> with what seems to be an involuntarily ommitted part, the list of
> issues you consider should be dealt with.
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
Alejandro
Sorry, I had missed this email of a few weeks back... My organisation
did submit a list of global Internet related public policy issues that
need resolution in response to the questionnaire of Working Group on
Enhanced Cooperation. Our full response is here
<http://www.itforchange.net/Response_to_the_questionnaire_issued_by_CSTD_Working_Group_on_Enhanced_Cooperation_html>
The response to question 4 which is the one relevant to your email is
cut pasted below.......
(begins)
*4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining
to the Internet? *
The report of the Working Group on Internet Governance^1
<http://www.itforchange.net/Response_to_the_questionnaire_issued_by_CSTD_Working_Group_on_Enhanced_Cooperation_html#sdfootnote1sym>
(WGIG), set up during the WSIS process, identified many international
public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. This output of the
Working Group was recognized by the Tunis Agenda, which reasserts most
of these issues. Some more issues were identified in the background
report^2
<http://www.itforchange.net/Response_to_the_questionnaire_issued_by_CSTD_Working_Group_on_Enhanced_Cooperation_html#sdfootnote2sym>
to the WGIG report. More recently, the ITU Council Resolution 1305
(2009), in its Annex 1, recognized some public policy issues pertaining
to the Internet, especially those with rather significant technical aspects.
It is difficult to have a closed list of international public policy
issues pertaining to the Internet, since new ones keep cropping up, with
amazing rapidity. An indicative, non-exhaustive, list of public policy
issues pertaining to the Internet is given below. It is difficult at
this stage to do such a listing in any strict order of priority. We
start with issues listed in the WGIG report and its background report,
move to the listing made by the ITU, and then add some more emergent issues.
Issues listed in the WGIG report (see the report for elaboration of each
issue)
*
Administration of the root zone files and system
*
Interconnection costs (especially global interconnection)
*
Internet stability, security and cybercrime
*
Spam
*
Allocation of domain names
*
IP addressing
*
Intellectual property rights (IPR)
*
Freedom of Expression
*
Data protection and privacy rights
*
Consumer rights
*
Multilingualism
*
Convergence and next generation networks
*
trade and e-commerce
Some additional public policy issues mentioned in the background report
to the WGIG report (elaborated in the report)
*
Applicable jurisdiction, cross border coordination
*
Internet service providers (ISPs) and third party liabilities
*
National policies and regulations (harmonization of)
*
Competition policy, liberalization, privatization and regulations
*
Affordable and universal access
*
Cultural diversity
*
technical standards, and technology choices
Public policy issues recognized in the ITU Resolution 1305, with regard
to "scope of work of ITU on international Internet-related public policy
matters"
*
Multilingualization of the Internet including Internationalized
(multilingual) Domain Names
*
International Internet Connectivity
*
International public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and
the management of Internet resources, including domain names and
addresses
*
The security, safety, continuity, sustainability, and robustness of
the Internet
*
Combating cybercrime
*
Dealing effectively with spam
*
Issues pertaining to the use and misuse of the Internet
*
Availability, affordability, reliability, and quality of service,
especially in the developing world
*
Contributing to capacity building for Internet governance in
developing countries
*
Developmental aspects of the Internet
*
Respect for privacy and the protection of personal information and data
*
Protecting children and young people from abuse and exploitation
There are many more, existing as well as emergent ,public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet, like;
*
Cloud computing (global issues involved)
*
Cross border Internet flows
*
Tax allocation among different jurisdictions with regard to global
e-commerce
*
Economics of personal data (who owns, who makes money from, and so on)
*
Net neutrality (that all data is given equal priority on networks)
*
Search neutrality (that global search engines give neutral results)
*
Media convergence - Internet and traditional media (Internet
companies versus newspapers, radio, cable and TV, book publishing
industry etc)
*
Regulation of global Internet businesses (in terms of adherence to
competition policies, consumer rights, law enforcement etc)
*
Internet intermediary companies as private agents for
extra-territorial law enforcement (problems with)
*
Access to knowledge and free information flows, deepening the public
domain on the Internet
*
Accessibility policies for the disabled
*
Development of, and protection to, local content, local application,
local e-services, and local/ domestic Internet businesses
*
Protection of vulnerable sections, like children, women, traditional
communities etc
*
Internet and health systems, education systems, governance systems
and so on*.*
*
Many many more... this being an unending and ever-evolving list,
such is the transformational influence of the Internet on our social
systems*.*
(ends)
Thanks
parminder
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:58 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
> Agree with George,
>
> There is a serious need for this thought experiment.
>
> Lets devote at least half of our consciousness to this thought
> experiment - take it that ICANN side problems are all solved.
>
> What other things, perhaps more important than 'ICANN issues' is
> NetMundial supposed to address.
>
> I do not agree with George or Nick that non 'ICANN side issues'
> are not Internet governance issues. But lets discuss different
> positions on these issues in any case..
>
> parminder
>
> On Monday 17 March 2014 10:42 PM, George Sadowsky wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I would like to focus on a broader issue raised by the
>> interesting discussion below. It has been touched on before,
>> but I think it's useful to go somewhat further.
>>
>> I see the issue as what is the appropriate domain of 'Internet
>> governance' concerns. And that leads immediately to what we
>> think the domain of concern of "Internet governance' is, i.e. how
>> we define it.
>>
>> *I'd like to propose a thought experiment.* Suppose that by 30
>> September 2015, somehow "we" have created an appropriate
>> accountability mechanism to replace NTIA's current
>> responsibilities. Further, suppose that (1) NTIA accepted it
>> and proceeded to make the transfer to the new mechanism, and (2)
>> there was very broad general agreement across multiple
>> stakeholder groups globally that this was a transition that was
>> worth supporting.
>>
>> *What, then, would we discuss next?*
>>
>> *On the one hand*, some of us argue that Internet governance is
>> really the appropriate construction of Internet administration
>> and coordination mechanisms, with their appropriate oversight,
>> and that issues of content and behavior need to be discussed in
>> more general contexts. Nick Ashton-Hart argues this persuasively.
>> As an example, I would find it unproductive to discuss
>> surveillance in the Internet unless it were within a more general
>> context of surveillance policy. In that context, I see the
>> Internet as another tool, such as using hidden cameras and
>> microphones, tapping voice phone lines and intercepting postal mail.
>>
>> *On the other hand*, it's clear that the introduction of the
>> Internet has introduced both qualitative and quantitative changes
>> in many areas of life and of human behavior, and that mechanisms
>> dealing with them have not caught up to dealing with the
>> Internet's disruptive influence. Such problems often have (at
>> least) two aspects, one technical and the other societal. I
>> would not characterize these as Internet governance problems, but
>> rather problems with respect to general governance caused or
>> exacerbated by the Introduction of the Internet.
>>
>> So back to the thought experiment. If we really do solve the
>> accountability and administrative issues related to ICANN and
>> IANA in a manner that is widely accepted (admittedly a stretch,
>> but it works for a thought experiment), then that is off the
>> agenda. What's next on the "Internet governance" agenda, and
>> why? Do the venues for those discussions change, or not? Does
>> the label by which we refer o those discussions change, or not?
>> What is your "to do" list for Internet governance after an IANA
>> final solution:
>>
>> 1. ....
>> 2. ....
>> 3. ....
>> 4. ....
>> ....
>>
>> Opinions welcome.
>>
>> Finally, if you believe that there is nothing left after an IANA
>> final solution, then it might be useful to suggest some of the
>> specify issues that you exclude, and suggest suggest specific
>> venues and processes that that represent the correct way forward
>> to address those problems.
>>
>> This is really the issue of what Internet governance is, and is
>> not. The WGIG definition had enough creative generality to
>> navigate a process through the political environment of WSIS, but
>> now we are addressing more specific issues. We lack descriptive
>> terms that have enough specificity for us to be able to even
>> discuss them without stumbling over definitional differences.
>> That kind of stumbling is not a good use of resources. If we do
>> not share what a word or a phrase means, I don't see how we can
>> discuss it sensibly. Responses to the proposed thought
>> experiment might yield some clarity on this point.
>>
>> My sense is that the terms 'Internet coordination' and 'Internet
>> administration' are unused terms that could be used to clarify
>> discussions, but for some reason they have not been adopted by
>> many others. Using more precise and shared terms to discuss the
>> issues within the different strata of Vint's diagram, sent in an
>> earlier e-mail, would IMO be very helpful in making progress in
>> these discussions.
>>
>> Let's concentrate on recognizing, defining and identifying
>> problems --- it's more important and, at least for me, more
>> satisfying than semantic arguments.
>>
>> George
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:22 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart
>> <nashton at ccianet.org <mailto:nashton at ccianet.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Seun, inline responses
>>>
>>> On 17 Mar 2014, at 10:11, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Nick,
>>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart
>>>> <nashton at ccianet.org <mailto:nashton at ccianet.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I disagree.
>>>>
>>>> The international community does need a way to discuss
>>>> surveillance - but Internet governance is not that venue,
>>>> for the simple reason that the surveillance issue is about
>>>> surveillance and not the Internet.
>>>>
>>>> The issue of mass surveillance is really asking the
>>>> question of how do countries treat non-nationals in their
>>>> national security activities. The fact that the Internet is
>>>> used as a tool for surveillance is really irrelevant to the
>>>> question, just as the Internet is used for distribution of
>>>> illegal material like those related to child exploitation
>>>> but that is primarily an enforcement of laws issue, not an
>>>> Internet issue.
>>>>
>>>> IG does not need to be about everything where there is an
>>>> Internet dimension - or no solution to any problem can be
>>>> found.
>>>>
>>>> However: the political demands for action over surveillance
>>>> are impacting the Internet as we all know - so we do have a
>>>> vested interest in ensuring that the core issue of mass
>>>> surveillance is addressed, just not primarily by us, and
>>>> not in IG.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just to get the flow right, when you say "us" whom do you
>>>> refer? and when you say mass surveillance is not an IG issue
>>>> then what issue is it? My expectation is that the IG platform
>>>> will provide an avenue to discuss the issue and then propose
>>>> solutions which countries will then turn to legal content
>>>> applicable to them. If the issues are not discussed then it
>>>> will be difficult to know what they are and address them.
>>>> Bringing then to IG fora will help give it a voice that could
>>>> hopefully get to the listening hears of government and relevant
>>>> authorities.
>>>
>>> "Us" meaning the IG community. As to what issue it is, it is, as
>>> I described, an issue of surveillance, not the Internet. So, the
>>> human rights dimensions are currently being actively addressed
>>> in the Human Rights Council and related processes. The exchange
>>> of data for criminal and national security purposes are governed
>>> by MLATs (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties) - Access.org
>>> <http://access.org/> has an excellent website devoted to MLAT
>>> reform at www.mlat.info <http://www.mlat.info/>.
>>>
>>> Bringing this issue to IG fora will harmfully conflate issues
>>> which have nothing to do with IG with IG issues, and contaminate
>>> (further) Internet governance with a great deal of
>>> politicisation. I would hope that we all don't want to see the
>>> security, stability, and universality of the Internet further
>>> polluted with politics of national security and safety.
>>>
>>>> As per the NetMundial, i agree with Avri that from recent
>>>> happenings, ICANN-IANA related issues may carry the majority of
>>>> the agenda which ofcourse was not the only reason why the event
>>>> was conjured in the first place. However since the ICANN-IANA
>>>> discussion will start from ICANN49 i think some foundational
>>>> progress will have been made to further lighten up the
>>>> NetMundial agenda to accommodate the other half of the goal
>>>> which is largely related to mass surveillance.
>>>
>>> I think if NetMundial is consumed with ICANN issues that will be
>>> both a mistake and a huge missed opportunities. Finding a way to
>>> agree on principles, and what is, and is not, appropriate for IG
>>> policy to address would be a significant added value; there is
>>> also no other global forum designed to produce outcomes along
>>> these lines. The discussion of internationalizing ICANN has a
>>> home for discussions: ICANN.
>>>
>>>> I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with recent
>>>> development on ICANN-IANA, as it is good news. However we
>>>> should also not let that overwhelm the other present concerns.
>>>> Lets remember that the ICANN-IANA processes is to prevent the
>>>> future "what-IFs" while mass surveillance on the other hand is
>>>> currently happening and we should not neglect that.
>>>
>>> "we" cannot solve national security issues. All we can do is
>>> insist that the various aspects of national security use of data
>>> and the rules by which non-nationals are treated are dealt with
>>> - in the fora where they are already under discussion.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17 Mar 2014, at 06:16, parminder
>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday 16 March 2014 09:51 PM, Victor Ndonnang wrote:
>>>>>> +1 Adiel.
>>>>>> Surveillance and intelligence agencies was there before
>>>>>> the Internet. Even
>>>>>> if the Internet has a role in the mass
>>>>>> surveillance...USG/NTIA intent to
>>>>>> transfer IANA and root zone management related to the
>>>>>> global independent
>>>>>> Multistakeholder entity is not a response to the mass
>>>>>> surveillance issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree, developments on the ICANN oversight issue do not
>>>>> constitute any real response to mass surveillance problem.
>>>>> And since NetMundial came out of a series of events
>>>>> directly connected to the mass surveillance problem, and
>>>>> which is the main reason the 'global community' invested
>>>>> into it, it is only fair to the people across the world
>>>>> that we have
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. discussions on this issues, and others related to
>>>>> larger international public policy issues pertaining to
>>>>> the Internet , and
>>>>> 2. come up with proposals regarding these issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have seen almost nil work on this list in this regard.
>>>>> ICANN oversight issue should not be allowed to overshadow
>>>>> these much more important and pressing global public
>>>>> policy issues. I fear this is what is happening. A good
>>>>> reason of course is structural about what 1Net is.
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>> May be that Global Multistakeholder entity will be the
>>>>>> IETF or I... to help
>>>>>> strengthen security, privacy and trust on the Internet.
>>>>>> The Internet Governance is mainly a technical thing,
>>>>>> let's leave the
>>>>>> technical community takes care of it with the full
>>>>>> participation and inputs
>>>>>> of others stakeholders.
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Victor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>>> De : discuss-bounces at 1net.org
>>>>>> <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org>
>>>>>> [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] De la part
>>>>>> de Adiel Akplogan
>>>>>> Envoyé : Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:48 AM
>>>>>> À : Seun Ojedeji
>>>>>> Cc : 1 Net List; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
>>>>>> - IGC
>>>>>> Objet : Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I disagree as well. In this discussion it is very
>>>>>> important to dissociate
>>>>>> the USG/NTIA by role in the performance of IANA function
>>>>>> by ICANN and the
>>>>>> issue related to mass surveillance. The two are not
>>>>>> technically linked and
>>>>>> should be addressed separately.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Seun Ojedeji
>>>>>> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well I would not disagree that mass surveillance indeed
>>>>>>> continues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any NSA statement that says otherwise?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>>>> sent from Google nexus 4
>>>>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15 Mar 2014 19:08, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:joly at punkcast.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Disagree,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Different department.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> j
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well)
>>>>>>> <pouzin at well.com <mailto:pouzin at well.com>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the
>>>>>>> "internet freedom"
>>>>>> smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion
>>>>>> for the show.
>>>>>>> Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Louis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC -
>>>>>>> http://wwwhatsup.com <http://wwwhatsup.com/>
>>>>>>> http://pinstand.com <http://pinstand.com/> -
>>>>>>> http://punkcast.com <http://punkcast.com/> VP
>>>>>>> (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org <http://isoc-ny.org/>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> /Seun Ojedeji,
>>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>>>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>
>>>> Mobile: +2348035233535
>>>> //alt
>>>> email:<http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140402/b6d6eeed/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list