[discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'

michael gurstein gurstein at gmail.com
Wed Apr 2 18:09:08 UTC 2014

It might be interesting and useful to know (as an extension of the thought
experiment for example) which of the issues listed below various colleagues
thought might be applicable to IETF type multistakeholder decision making
processes and which might not (recognizing that multistakeholder
consultation processes will have value in a much broader range of issue




From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of parminder
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 8:00 AM
To: Alejandro Pisanty
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA



On Wednesday 19 March 2014 06:25 AM, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:



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


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

The response to question 4 which is the one relevant to your email is cut
pasted below.......


4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to
the Internet? 


The report of the Working Group on Internet Governance
king_Group_on_Enhanced_Cooperation_html#sdfootnote1sym> 1 (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
king_Group_on_Enhanced_Cooperation_html#sdfootnote2sym> 2 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

·         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


·         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

·         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

·         Economics of personal data (who owns, who makes money from, and so

·         Net neutrality (that all data is given equal priority on networks)

·         Search neutrality (that global search engines give neutral

·         Media convergence - Internet and traditional media (Internet
companies versus newspapers, radio, cable and TV, book publishing industry

·         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






On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:58 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

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..


On Monday 17 March 2014 10:42 PM, George Sadowsky wrote:



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








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








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>

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.







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.


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.

-----Message d'origine-----
De : 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> wrote:

Well I would not disagree that mass surveillance indeed continues.

Any NSA statement that says otherwise?

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 15 Mar 2014 19:08, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

Different department.


On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>



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 ?


You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:

For all other list information and functions, see:
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

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
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org

discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org

discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org


discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org


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



discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org


discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org


discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.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,
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/20140402/3982b0bc/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list