[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Thu Feb 20 12:44:42 UTC 2014
Hi,
Yes, more top-down decision making panels, just what ICANN need to show
how bottom-up it is.
avri
On 20-Feb-14 13:37, McTim wrote:
> Ian, see today's announced Board resolutions:
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-17feb14-en.htm
>
>
>
> Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board
>
> 17 February 2014
>
>
> President's Globalization Advisory Groups
>
> Whereas, the multistakeholder model has matured in response to the many
> challenges of exponential growth in the Internet, so ICANN must continue
> to evolve and grow in response to those challenges.
>
> Whereas, ICANN's mission and responsibilities are to the global
> community and stakeholders worldwide.
>
> Whereas, as a multistakeholder organization ICANN must evolve to fully
> execute its narrow mission, which is to coordinate, at the overall
> level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and be in a
> position to meet new challenges whether operational, policy, political
> or technical.
>
> Whereas, in order for ICANN to fully execute its mission as a
> multistakeholder organization and be in a position to meet operational,
> policy, political, or technical challenges, there must be an evolution
> of the globalization of ICANN.
>
> Whereas, the globalization of ICANN includes, among other things:
> strengthening and continuing to evolve and improve ICANN as a
> multistakeholder organization; and contributing as a partner in the
> Internet eco-system to strengthen awareness and the evolution of
> multistakeholder Internet governance and cooperation in a manner that
> ensures the continued flexibility to adapt to emerging issues.
>
> Whereas, on 28 September 2013, the ICANN Board authorized the CEO to,
> among other things, "work with other key organizations and leaders to
> establish a coalition towards the formation of a movement or initiative"
> ("Coalition"), in order to address increasing concerns regarding the
> effectiveness of a "global, open, multi-stakeholder Internet governance
> system."
>
>
> Whereas, the President and CEO has executed the mandate of the 28
> September 2013 Board resolution and has helped facilitate a number of
> activities, including:
>
> (i) the expansion and launch of a previously announced strategy panel
> now entitled "Panel on the Future of Internet Governance;"
>
> (ii) development of and participation in the "1net initiative"; and
>
> (iii) encouraging the establishment of and support for a meeting on
> multistakeholder Internet governance that is now likely to take place in
> Brazil in April 2014.
>
>
> Whereas, on 17 November 2013, the Board approved Resolution2013.11.17.01
> <tel:2013.11.17.01> directing the President and CEO to continue
> supporting the three emerging and evolving initiatives and recognizing
> that ICANN, as part of the Internet ecosystem, is just one of the many
> participants providing resources and support to the following three
> initiatives:
>
> (i) the expansion and launch of a previously announced strategy panel
> now entitled "Panel on the Future of Internet Governance";
>
> (ii) development and participation in the "1net initiative"; and
>
> (iii) encouraging the establishment of and support for a meeting on
> multistakeholder Internet governance that is now likely to take place in
> Brazil in April 2014.
>
> Whereas, in Resolution 2013.11.17.01 <tel:2013.11.17.01>, the Board
> noted that "without strengthening a global, coherent approach to
> Internet governance, ongoing and emerging issues will not be properly
> addressed in a collective, collaborate way, which may inadvertently
> affect the operational unity of the Internet, consistent with ICANN's
> mandate."
>
> Whereas, the continued globalization of ICANN must evolve in several
> ways, including: partnerships in the broader Internet eco-system to
> strengthen multistakeholder Internet governance frameworks;
> strengthening ICANN itself, including affirmations of commitments and
> relationships among the stakeholders; evolving the policy structures to
> serve and scale to the needs of the global community, and identify
> opportunities for the future legal structures and IANA globalization.
>
> Whereas, given the nature and breadth of issues involved with the
> continued globalization efforts, ICANN has recognized the importance of
> the timely establishment of groups of Board members to focus on given
> topic areas, and then report and make recommendations to the President
> and CEO, and the full Board, for consideration.
>
> Whereas, as part of its continued globalization efforts, ICANN should
> establish certain "President's Globalization Advisory Groups" composed
> of Board members to address the following areas: Affirmation of
> Commitments ("AOC"), policy structures, legal structure, root server
> system, the IANA multistakeholder accountability, and Internet governance.
>
> Resolved (2014.02.17.01 <tel:%282014.02.17.01>), the Board approves the
> creation of several President's Globalization Advisory Groups in order
> to support further ICANN globalization. These Advisory Groups of Board
> members are being set up to provide guidance to the full Board in
> support of ICANN's globalization work led by the President and CEO. The
> President's Globalization Advisory Groups will meet with the community
> during ICANN 49 Singapore Meeting, and around IETF 89, and other
> community meetings to discuss the ICANN globalization issues. The
> President's Globalization Advisory Groups will then make recommendations
> to the Board, which the Board will report during ICANN 50 London Meeting.
>
> These Advisory Groups will deal with the following topics:
>
> Affirmation of Commitments ("AOC");
>
> policy structures;
>
> legal structure;
>
> root server system;
>
> the IANA multistakeholder accountability; and,
>
> Internet governance.
>
> The President and CEO will announce the composition of these Advisory
> Groups within two days following the posting of this resolution at
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/globalization-19feb14-en.pdf [see
> attached]; the President and CEO shall have the authority to change the
> Advisory Groups and their composition from time to time, without
> requiring a further resolution.
>
>
>
> RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTION 2014.02.17.01 <tel:2014.02.17.01>
>
> This resolution is a continuation of the Board's 28 September 2013 and
> 17 November resolutions providing ICANN's President and CEO with a
> mandate to explore how ICANN could coordinate with stakeholders from
> across the globe to address the pressing issue of the future of Internet
> governance. On 28 September 2013, the Board directed the President and
> CEO to work towards the establishment of a coalition to start an effort
> to form an Internet cooperation agenda, and to do so in a manner
> consistent with ICANN's mission. Following the September meeting, the
> President and CEO executed the mandate of the 28 September 2013 Board
> resolution and helped facilitate a number of activities, including: (i)
> the expansion and launch of a previously announced strategy panel now
> entitled "Panel on the Future of Internet Governance;" (ii) development
> of and participation in the "1net initiative"; and (iii) encouraging the
> establishment of and support for a meeting on multi-stakeholder Internet
> governance that is now likely to take place in Brazil in April 2014.
>
> On 17 November 2013, the Board approved Resolution2013.11.17.01
> <tel:2013.11.17.01> directing the CEO to continue supporting the three
> emerging and evolving initiatives and recognizes that ICANN, as part of
> the Internet ecosystem, is just one of the many participants providing
> resources and support to the following initiatives: (i) the expansion
> and launch of a previously announced strategy panel now entitled "Panel
> on the Future of Internet Governance"; (ii) development and
> participation in the "1net initiative"; and (iii) encouraging the
> establishment of and support for a meeting on multi-stakeholder Internet
> governance that is now likely to take place in Brazil in April 2014. The
> Board also noted in Resolution 2013.11.17.01 <tel:2013.11.17.01> that
> "without strengthening a global, coherent approach to Internet
> governance, ongoing and emerging issues will not be properly addressed
> in a collective, collaborate way, which may inadvertently affect the
> operational unity of the Internet, consistent with ICANN's mandate."
>
> ICANN and the multistakeholder model have been exposed to many
> challenges, and ICANN must evolve to face the challenges. ICANN's
> mission and responsibilities are to the global community and
> stakeholders worldwide. To remain accountable to ICANN's mission and
> community, the Board recognizes that as a multistakeholder organization
> ICANN must evolve to fully execute on its mission, and be in a position
> to meet the challenges whether operational, political or technical.
>
> The continued globalization of ICANN must evolve in several ways,
> including: partnerships in the broader Internet eco-system to strengthen
> multistakeholder Internet governance frameworks; strengthening ICANN
> itself, including affirmations of commitments and relationships among
> the stakeholders; evolving the policy structures to serve and scale to
> the needs of the global community, and identify opportunities for the
> future legal structures and IANA globalization.
>
> This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public
> comment is not required.
>
>
>
> Published on 19 February 2014
>
> rgds,
>
> McTim
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> You make some good points below and I think your wording as regards
> dimensions of an acceptable solution are good and worth utilising. I
> am wondering if we should attempt some sort of submission to the
> Brazil meeting on a roadmap for this issue. Your words, and Georges,
> are a good start.
>
> But I wonder if a coherent statement is possible here or whether
> there is a better chance of some statement emanating from some other
> forum. As you mention, there are elements within the ICANN structure
> (and indeed elsewhere) who will resist any change. Some will change
> their mind if there is a better proposition, but some simply will
> not. They have power to lose.
>
> Some of these elements are upfront and honest about their resistance
> to any change. Others however, will just dig in and resist while not
> declaring that their actions are designed to preserve a status quo.
> We have a bit of each here. Those resisting may have the power to
> delay any action for a very long time - as evidenced by this issue
> being on the books for over a decade.
>
> The choice here is ICANN's. From the Montevideo statement, I read
> willingness to change. If ICANN wants to be part of the solution, it
> will have to find a way to ensure that it is able to act in an
> efficient and timely manner. If it can't, other solutions will be
> sought and advanced.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Mike Roberts
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 2:23 PM
> To: discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> List
> Subject: [discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
>
>
> Some weeks ago, George set us on our current course with an
> excellent problem statement, which included a list of criteria or
> attributes of the new "place," that IANA might occupy.
>
> --------------------
> "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."
> ---------------------
>
> Subsequently, there has been good progress on addressing the
> substance of his memo, and related issues. With occasional forays
> into dead ends, which I think have been adroitly dealt with in the
> last day or two via the "conflated" notes.
>
> As we near the dates for the Sao Paulo meeting, it is my impression
> that we have made more progress on the manner and process of IANA
> traveling from Point A - the status quo- to Point B - the new
> geotechnical niche, than we have in outlining the dimensions of the
> new home. To push the metaphor, we have a street address, but at
> that location currently there is a pile of dirt.
>
> At the risk of (a) violating George's dictum to deal with issues in
> chewable bites, and (b) hazarding solutions to problems that have
> not been defined, or at the least not adequately vetted, I draw your
> attention to Patrik's post of today on the recent position
> statements of Swedish government officials on the matter before us.
>
> <http://www.circleid.com/__posts/20140219_it_is_payback___time_government_of_sweden_on___internet_governance/
> <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140219_it_is_payback_time_government_of_sweden_on_internet_governance/>>
>
> To state the obvious, these are carefully constructed,
> diplomatically nuanced, statements by individuals who know what they
> are talking about.
>
> I draw two conclusions from what I read here.
>
> - the solution space for IANA, and IG generally, very definitely
> involves governments. To those who might prefer something else, I
> offer three words,"Get Over It." Years ago, Jon Postel said,
> "Governments do count." Some things don't change.
>
> - the destination space for IANA and ICANN, assuming they continue
> to be conjoined, must be superior in several respects to the status
> quo in order to gain the support of the IG stakeholders who hold
> veto power for one reason or another. In particular, it must:
>
> - offer a legal structure that is no less robust against rogue
> litigation attacks than is the current arrangement, where the USG
> provides a solid backstop.
>
> - be aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way
> that supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS as
> good as or better than currently exists.
>
> - be a political "safe harbor" or "neutral corner" that convinces
> governments, with good motives and bad, to leave it alone to do its
> important job.
>
>
> Finally, we should not underestimate the extent to which ICANN has,
> under recent management, solidified its support among important
> stakeholder groups. As evidenced by submissions to this list, among
> other things, a number of them do not yet see a persuasive rationale
> for moving from Point A to Point B. Until they do, not much is
> going to happen.
>
> Regards,
>
> - Mike
>
> -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/__mailman/listinfo/discuss
> <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>
> _________________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/__mailman/listinfo/discuss
> <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
More information about the discuss
mailing list