[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

Ian Peter ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Thu Feb 13 20:20:22 UTC 2014


I must admit I was hoping for more than an interesting discussion here. I think we have been talking about this for well over a decade.

I think we would achieve broad consensus here for Option 3 – which is internalisation of the previous IANA processes within ICANN. That itself would be quite a milestone and a first achievement for 1net.

I also think that that direction would be supported by the EU  – it is multistakeholder – and by many other governments. I also think that USA which often indicates its support for multistakeholder would, under the weight of such a multistakholder consensus, eventually feel it necessary to support this direction. 

If we could get to Brazil with a clear forward direction, I believe there is a strong chance that Brazil could actually have a useful outcome – acceptance of a direction for solution of the IANA oversight issue. That would be a good achievement.

So if we wanted to try and achieve that, I wouldn’t try to arrive at any firm solution as regards GAC involvement at this stage. Indeed, I would try to throw a statement of direction and principles back at ICANN to figure out the details. Yes, as you say, the devil is in the details, so I would leave the devil locked up there for a while until we get a clear consensus and agreement on a direction. And also discussions on the role of GAC would best involve GAC so are not so useful here.

Starting from the recent EU declaration, we would need to include security, stability and a timeframe. And I think your (5) below is a good start for a brief.

“5. Acceptable solutions for assignment of the IANA root zone function should meet several criteria: (1) protection of the root zone from political or other improper interference; (2) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the administration of the root zone; (3) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the administration of this function; (4) support of a single unified root zone; and (5) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest.”

I would like to see us aim towards a request, perhaps for adoption in Brazil, for ICANN to produce an internalised solution meeting the criteria in (5) (and any others we might like to add) with a timeframe . I would suggest IGF this September would be good for a report to be developed further. I could see implementation in that case within 12 months.

Then we are left with one related question – internationalisation of ICANN. But again the options here have been discussed for some time. But perhaps our consensus request could also ask ICANN (with a timeframe) to present a solution to this.

Ian Peter

PS I would also suggest that ICANN utilise an outside independent consultancy based outside of the USA to conduct this study and consult all stakeholders and prepare the directions paper, in the interests of expediency and efficiency.

From: George Sadowsky 
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 3:30 AM
To: Milton L Mueller ; mailto:discuss at 1net.org 
Subject: Re: [discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"


Thanks for bringing up your original writing.  I looked for it in my own archives, couldn’t find it, and so depended upon memory.  That’s not always a good option for an aging brain.  I apologize for misstating your position.

I don’t think I’m avoiding coming to grips with any differences.  I’m glad that you were able to sharpen the options as you’ve done below.  My comments were an attempt to describe and delineate the space of possible solutions, and you have helped to do that.

I am not trying to discredit the denationalization option.  It’s clear that the GAC will stay. However, under your #3 option, will the GAC have any say whatsoever in any IANA (or son of IANA, or new-name) decisions regarding the root zone file, and if so, under what terms?  The devil is in such details.   

Milton, you may have thought I was waffling because I was just describing and delineating what I regarded as the space of alternatives.  I wasn’t waffling; I was trying to invoke discussion of those alternatives.  I can tell you that:

A. I am personally in favor of option 3, and have been for some time.

B. Given the current structure of ICANN, including the GAC, it will be really important to get any revised denationalized (your words) structure defined well with respect to the new interrelationships.

Others, however, may disagree, and I did not want to push the discussion, at that point in time, toward my own preferences.

Oh the other hand, so far most of the comments seem to favor option #3, so perhaps it’s worth concentrating some discussion on it.  I am not a lawyer, but it’s clear to me (assuming that IANA stays coupled to ICANN) that ICANN’s legal status changes.  Are there anti-trust or competitiveness law implications?  My guess is that there surely are, and from multiple countries. 

What legal structure should such a born-again ICANN take.  Here’s where I was hoping that Jovan’s text below would be interesting to discuss; so far, no one has picked that up.  If #3 is the correct path to take, i.e. if we know where we want to go. and we know where we are now, what are the feasible paths that could get us there?    I refer back to item 5 in the problem statement.  It is not going to go away:

  5. Acceptable solutions for assignment of the IANA root zone function should meet several criteria: (1) protection of the root zone from political or other improper interference; (2) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the administration of the root zone; (3) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the administration of this function; (4) support of a single unified root zone; and (5) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest. 

So, where do we go from here?  Milton, since you are clearly also in favor of this option, perhaps you would describe for us your proposed structure of the post-transition organizations and relationships between them, in sufficient detail to address the various conflicts and dangers that might arise, and what paths we might choose to arrive there.  That could be a basis for interesting further discussion on this list.



On Feb 12, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

  George. You did not quite get the 3 options right. They were:

  <!--[if !supportLists]-->1)      <!--[endif]-->Unilateral control by 1 govt (the status quo)

  <!--[if !supportLists]-->2)      <!--[endif]-->Multilateral control 

  <!--[if !supportLists]-->3)      <!--[endif]-->De-nationalization of the IANA function; ie., removal of USG control and delegation of it to ICANN. Note well: this does NOT require exclusion of governments from all involvement in ICANN.

  What you propose as a solution, “one based upon multistkeholderism,” is actually an attempt to avoid coming to grips with difference between #2 and #3. By attempting to do this, you are seriously muddying the waters at a time that we need absolutely clarity. 

  EITHER root zone changes are the responsibility of ICANN, in which case you are advocating #3 (because ICANN is not an intergovernmental organization) OR governments have some kind of special authority over root zone changes, in which case your solution devolves to #2. Please decide which one you are advocating. I will not let you waffle.

  What you’ve done in an attempt to discredit the de-nationalization option is to pretend that if we devolve control to ICANN, that governments are excluded entirely from the process. This is obviously false. Governments currently play a major role in ICANN, via GAC advice. So one could easily cut the cord to the USG, vest the IANA function in ICANN fully, and governments would still be involved. Even if the GAC were dismantled, as some of us favor, it is still completely possible and indeed desirable for individuals who work for or are contracted by governments to participate in ICANN. 

  Some of us are proposing to reform the role of governments in ICANN to make it consistent with a truly equal-status, multistakeholder governance process. I am really getting tired of hearing, as a response to these proposals, that “governments are a part of our world and we can’t ignore or exclude then.” That is either a dishonest or a completely clueless response. By eliminating special powers for governments and avoiding intergovernmental control, we are not proposing to completely exclude governments from the process. We are simply proposing to adhere more consistently to the MS model and give government agencies and employees the same status as everyone else. 

  Milton Mueller

  Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies


  >The third approach is in my view equally unrealistic.  Governments are 

  >a part of our world.  They have useful and essential functions  We depend upon the creation and evolution of legal structures along with the administrative and judicial mechanisms that institutes and implement them.  We may be concerned with their inappropriate use of power, but we can’t deny that they have a place at the table.  We are likely, however, to differ about what that place is and what limitations might be put upon them.

  The second approach, one based upon multistakeholderism, seems like the only viable and significantly acceptable one.  While that choice may be comforting in terms of its inclusive orientation, the space of solutions that could be called multistakeholder is vast and multidimensional, with the only necessary condition for being in the set is that all relevant stakeholder groups, however defined, have some degree of inclusion into the process and that no one group has an absolute veto over the activities of the group.  Distributions of power, representation, and decision making authority all vary, possibly enormously among stakeholder groups.  The very choice of what groups are included and who they include contributes to the diversity among solutions.  (For example, while ICANN correctly claims to be organized according to a multistakeholder model, in fact it is organized in accordance with a very specific and well-defined instantiation of the multistakeholder model.)

  So if we are going to talk about multi-stakeholder approaches to the problem, we will need to differentiate between a variety of them that might be suggested.  Saying that an approach is a multi-stakeholder approach is not sufficient; it will need to be characterized in a more definite manner.

  Finally, any approach that will be successful must make the great majority of us comfortable with its ability to maintain security, stability, and independence of the Internet’s fundamental naming and addressing systems, and with its ability to withstand takeover by any special interests.  Governments, including the US government, must be an integral part of that majority if any transition is to be feasible and ultimately successful.  Solutions that do not meet this criterion, and are not demonstrably better than what we have now, should not and will not be adopted.

  Incremental approaches

  Assuming that there are continuity and stability virtues in minimizing the amount of change that is made, I ask myself: are there acceptable solutions to the problem that minimize the account of change needed?  In which direction would they go?  I personally don’t have a good answer for that.  Perhaps others do.

  Diplomatic approaches, from Jovan Kurbalija

  In a recent provocative article,  Jovan Kurbalija has outlined a number of scenarios that find their rationale in established diplomatic behavior.  The article, at:


  contains the following scenarios.  I include them here because I think they represent serious approaches to the issue we’re discussing.  They may or may not be practical.


    The predominantly symbolic relevance of the root zone issue has created the basis for an analogy with diplomatic law, which deals with another highly symbolic issue: representation  of countries. It includes diplomatic precedence, the protection of diplomatic buildings, and the main functions of representation.[3] How can the regulation of symbolic aspects of diplomatic relations help in regulating the symbolic aspects of Internet politics? Here are two possibilities:

    The first possibility could be described as a ‘physical’ one, making the server and root database inviolable, in particular from any national jurisdiction. This possibility opens the question of where the root server will be located.  It could be located at the UN premises in New York and Geneva, which would simplify matters, since those entities already enjoy inviolability, including immunity from any national jurisdiction. Another option, such as continuing to use the current location would require changes in the US national law, in order to ensure international inviolability of the root database.  One could also consider assigning root zone file immunity as part of an ICANN+ arrangement (making ICANN a quasi-international organisation – discussed further down in the text). [4]

    The second possibility, which is a ‘virtual’ one: the root database should be assigned inviolabilityper se, wherever it is located. This solution is based on the analogy with diplomatic law which specifies that ‘[t]he archives and documents of the mission shall be inviolable at any time and wherever they may be.’ (i.e. article 24 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic  Relations).

    In this way, the root database can enjoy inviolability according to international law. Neither the USA,  nor any other authority, can interfere with the root database without necessary authorization. This could be the first phase in the policy process, which could build trust, and prepare for the second phase, which has to deal with the more difficult question:


    Here we get back to the question of decision-making process and  the status of ICANN. This has been exhaustively discussed, and it is clear that a workable solution should be based on a high level of inclusion, transparency, and checks and balances. As a practical solution for the root zone file, one could think of a double key system, involving a strengthened ICANN, with a stronger role for the GAC (to some extent codifying and formalizing what has been happening through the growing relevance of the GAC). A possible role for a reformed UN Trusteeship council could also be considered, as one of the actors in this checks and balances system.

    ICANN’s new quasi-international status, for example, following Swiss laws, could address most of the above-mentioned points. Shifting ICANN from the national to the international level, would require ensuring ICANN’s accountability towards consumers, users, and the Internet industry. Immunity should not be impunity.  Again, here we could have a solution through the interplay between international public law and private law options.


    The closest analogy is the governance of the Red Cross system. Analogous to the Geneva conventions in the humanitarian field, ‘a root convention’ would minimally grant immunity to the root database, and maximally specify how the root database would be managed. If the adoption of a root zone file convention would be too complex, one could consider an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, which could recognize the ‘instant’ customary law (practice of the US government of not interfering in countries' domain names without the consent of these countries). Either a convention or instant customary law would provide a functional basis for ICANN, which could be a quasi-international organisation, with a carefully balanced checks and balances approach, and a prominent role for the GAC. Such an ICANN+ would both host the root server, and manage the root database.

    There are some other solutions and possibilities. The bottom line is that there is a solution that could be both practical and legal. The symbolic issue of the root zone, at least, could be put to rest, and allow us to spend ‘policy energy’ on more practical and relevant issues. It could be also be a reasonable compromise.



  It’s quite possible that all of the above is a product of too limited thinking, and that an alternative, more comprehensive and high level approach looking at the entire Internet ecosystem as a whole might be more fruitful.  If so, what might such an approach be based upon, and why might it look like?  Perhaps on further reflection, and considering possible approaches to it, we may find that the problem definition is lacking, and needs modification or amplification.  If so, that represented profess of a certain kind.

  I present the above as my thoughts regarding possible approaches, with a large contribution from Jovan.  I admit to not having good answers to the problem, but I hope that the above material is helpful to starting a serious discussion.  If there is any appetite on the list to continue this discussion, I, and possibly others, would be interested in your comments.



discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140214/5c63b79f/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list