[discuss] Transparency and Accountability vis-à-vis ICANN and the IANA functions

[michael gurstein]

John, 

 

You probably overlooked this paragraph

 

There is a third possible goal (which I would anticipate many in this
discussion will suggest) which is “enabling the most effective (and/or
efficient) operation of the Internet”.  However, on close examination I
think it is clear that this is not (and cannot) be a discrete goal in
itself, rather it simply awaits the raising of the same question
 “enabling
the most effective operation of the Internet” for what
 --the public
interest or the range of private interests?

 

M

 

 

From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] 
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 3:12 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: George Sadowsky; 1Net List
Subject: Re: [discuss] Transparency and Accountability vis-à-vis ICANN and
the IANA functions

 

On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:55 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:





John and all (and please take this as also my response to your comments re:
"the Current Drive" discussion...

 

I take your points below concerning "principles"...

 

But from what I see these are principles concerning the processes which are
being (or will be) undertaken concerning ICANN/IANA.

 

What I don't see there is anything about what the fundamental goals that
these processes are directed towards or the outcome they are meant 

 

Efficient operation of the Internet...  this is the purpose for the Internet
protocols that

have been developed, and the accompanying registries serve the same purpose.

 

As I see it there are two possible and mutually exclusive goals that these
processes might be pursuing:

1.       The “public interest” i.e. ensuring that the operation of these
processes maximize benefits for the broadest range of those concerned with
the Internet i.e. (in the current context) “everybody”/in Parminder’s
phrase, the public

 

There are quite a few elements that might encompass "maximizing benefits
(for everybody)";

this includes specific public policy norms that effect protocol or registry
usage; various economic

incentives, taxation, and/or redistibutions, content controls versus freedom
of speech and 

various user and service provider mandates with regards to public policy
norms, etc.

 

These are not the realm of the Internet registry operations, anymore than
they are normally

part of the development of Internet protocols.   There may be interactions
from time to time,

but you do not want significant public policy tradeoffs for purposes of
governing the actiions

of others being made in predominantly technical forums.

 

BTW, I think going back to George’s original exhortation, this is the basic
and most fundamental question concerning Internet Governance Principles
which must be addressed in the context of the NetMundial.

 

That might easily be the case, but that is a set of principles for Internet
_governance_, whereas

ICANN and the related registries are predominantly about technical
administration and require

a set of principles that insure that Internet technical coordination is
performed in a very visible

and transparent manner.  These are different problem spaces.

 

Thanks!

/John

 

Disclaimer: My views alone.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140403/f5494ba3/attachment.html>