[discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'
Alejandro Pisanty
apisanty at gmail.com
Wed Apr 2 15:09:26 UTC 2014
Parminder,
thanks a lot. How should 1Net/NetMundial proceed - again following George's
suggestion to see what collective thinking can be developed - with respect
to any issue far removed from ICANN?
Alejandro Pisanty
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:00 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> 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 Governance1<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 report2<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>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>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Seun, inline responses
>>
>> On 17 Mar 2014, at 10:11, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Nick,
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <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.
>>
>> 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> 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<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>
>>> 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> wrote:
>>> Disagree,
>>>
>>> Different department.
>>>
>>> j
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <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
>>> 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://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP
>>> (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> 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
>> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> 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
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>
>
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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/b504deb0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list