[discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'
Alejandro Pisanty
apisanty at gmail.com
Wed Apr 2 18:32:19 UTC 2014
Michael,
since you have time for this - can you provide a template with your
concerns, with some identification of causal connections?
Alejandro Pisanty
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:09 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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
> areas).
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *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
> transition?'
>
>
>
>
>
> 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-Ekitiweb: *
> *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 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 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/20140402/7f37c733/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list