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

Wed Apr 2 21:23:33 UTC 2014

I'm an IP and technology transactional lawyer.  Not a lobbyist -- never have been one, wouldn't want to be one.  I don't work for the "copyright industry," though I have clients who create musical works from which they gain their livelihood.  I'm here on my own time and my own dime, and my opinions are my own.  I don't get them from anyone else and I don't have to check them with anyone else.  If they are consistent with those who create and distribute content, they're still my own opinions.  I wouldn't want to be violently opposed to what I do (like a vegan butcher); if I were, I'd try to do something else.  

(Of course, if were representing the "copyright industry," my positions would be no less valid -- everyone here (including you) has a point of view.  But I don't.)

My interest in the multistakeholder model comes from participating in ICANN working groups for the last 7 years, and a resulting belief that the bottom-up, consensus-driven multistakeholder model as implemented within ICANN is an effective (though sometimes slow and messy) way to achieve results that tend to be acceptable to all stakeholders (though sometimes with gritted teeth).  And I don't think the multistakeholder model at ICANN has necessarily achieved "better" results for IP owners than other models would have.  Nonetheless I support it, because I believe in it, along with others who have posted here who have taken very different views on substantive matters within those same working groups.  Indeed, the good will and open-mindedness that is required to successfully work through to consensus is something that binds all of us who have put time and effort into the process and its results.

The groups I'm involved in now at ICANN -- a Working Group on Policy and Implementation, a Committee on Improvements to GNSO Council processes, and the Cross-Community Working Group on Internet Governance -- are not those that the "copyright industry" (or the "trademark industry") probably cares much about at all.  Rather, they reflect my interest in improving the process by which the multistakeholder model works.  I expect the only way I'd get anyone to pay me to do this is if I joined ICANN policy staff.

I hope I've corrected your inaccurate assumptions.

In any event, my direct concern was to rebut the assumption that Moonesamy's (short) list was the extent to which MS models could apply, especially since there was no basis other than silence for that assumption (which is no basis at all, as per George Sadowsky's recent reminder on netiquette).  At the very least, the MS model can be applied to everything that ICANN currently applies it to.

Greg Shatan 

-----Original Message-----
From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 4:08 PM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; 'S Moonesamy'; parminder at itforchange.net; 'Alejandro Pisanty'
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: RE: [discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'

Tks,

So are you saying that all these issues should be subjected to multistakeholder decision-making processes, only some (which ones... and so on...

I'ld also be interested in hearing from folks from the technical community since my understanding is that you are a lobbyist err lawyer for the copyright industry in the US and so may have a quite specific interest in promoting a multistakeholder model in very extensive areas.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Shatan, Gregory S. [mailto:GShatan at ReedSmith.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 12:59 PM
To: 'michael gurstein'; 'S Moonesamy'; parminder at itforchange.net; 'Alejandro Pisanty'
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: RE: [discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'

No.

Greg Shatan

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 3:55 PM
To: 'S Moonesamy'; parminder at itforchange.net; 'Alejandro Pisanty'
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'

So, is it the sense of this discussion that the items mentioned by Moonesamy below are the appropriate extent of application of the "multistakeholder model" for Global (Internet) Policy decision-making and that other strategies for organizing decision making processes are required in the other areas.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+1net at elandsys.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 12:38 PM
To: gurstein at gmail.com; parminder at itforchange.net; Alejandro Pisanty
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'

Hi Mike,
At 11:09 02-04-2014, michael gurstein 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).

I am not sure about the meaning of "IETF type multistakeholder decision making processes".  I'll comment on some of the issues which were listed.

There was a research group (not in the IETF) working on spam.  The group spent many years on that problem and did not produce anything.  There is a government agency which tried to get a group in the IETF to work on solving spam-related problems.  There was
(informal) agreement to take that problem to the ITU as the communication model being proposed was better suited for that organization [1].  There is an ITU Study Group working on countering spam [2].

There were IETF working groups which worked on internationalization.  The working groups have been closed as they completed their work.

There is some ongoing work in an IETF working group which is related to exchanging information about security incidents.  That might be related to "cybercrime".

There are always technical choices.  If I participate in the IETF I would follow http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026 Some of these technical choices can affect the security of the internet [3].  I suggest subscribing to the IETF discussion list [4] (if you are not already subscribed) if you are interested in technical choices or the security of the internet.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. This is from my memory.  I suggest treating it as unreliable information.
2. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/about/groups/Pages/sg17.aspx
3. There are other venues in which technical choices relating to the security of the internet are discussed.
4. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

                                                                * * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.

                                                                * * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
                                                                        Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00