[discuss] Governmental participation (Was: Problem definition 1, v5)

Sat Jan 25 03:57:23 UTC 2014

Dear All,

Good Afternoon! For those of you in Asian Region - Happy Lunar New Year and
since it is the Year of the Horse, may we gallop our way into a good and
productive year of Internet Governance.

*Government Participation*
To add to the discussions. I would add that Governments around the world
contribute differently to Internet Governance regardless of whether we
apply the strict or wider definition of "governance". As is with
traditional telecommunications and ICT in general where some countries have
evolved and liberalised markets and privatised operations, the reality is
that there are many jurisdictions who still operate in closed markets and
in divergent models of administration and governance.

There are some Government Departments who directly manage their country's
ccTLD whilst others are privatised or outsourced. So in this sense, they
are also technical operators. Similarly, regulatory models differ across
the world and it all depends on context. As with all things, "context"
always shapes meaning. This illustrates that when developing models
involving governments, we cannot place a blanket description of the type
and nature of involvement even though they have a core traditional function
that is perhaps universal.

Secondly, there is a need to develop a matrix or SWOT Analysis where there
is a study to show the different institutional models proxy for global
public interest. This should include current institutions to show how we as
a global community can continue to improve the stewardship whilst carefully
balancing all stakeholder interests in the process leaving no one to be
marginalised.

*GAC Penetration Rate within ICANN as at December 31,2013*
If we compare the list of countries and territories that have had their
ccTLD assigned by IANA and identify those that participate in GAC meetings
within ICANN, we will see that the penetration rates are as follows:

   - Asian Australasian Pacific Region - 63%
   - African Region -56%
   - Latin American Caribbean Region - 39%
   - North American Region - 25%
   - European Region - 46%

[Based on numbers on the GAC website]

However the GAC website does not record attendance per meeting to enable a
count of participation.

It would also be interesting to see "level" and "extent" of participation
of various Governments in all key Internet Organisations. This should
include entities like the RIRs, IETF etc.

*Issues of most Paramount Concern for Governments*
Conducting a Survey in this regard would be useful to identify the issues
of Paramount concern for Governments. Mounting such an inquiry it will
allow and enable the wider community to be aware of the what the popular
issues are although we can have a fair view of what the perspectives are.
{Happy to volunteer to develop and launch such a Survey).

My guess at this stage is that the issues of concern range from e commerce
(taxation), cyber security, cyber crime, whois accuracy, privacy,
redelegation, revocation etc.

 87 countries (45% of UN members) signed the Seoul Framework seeking to
strengthen collaboration against cybercrime.

If we take a Policy topic such as Redelegation or Revocation involving
country codes. There is a need to increase inclusion from underserved
communities.

Whilst ccTLDs develop their own policies and countries to a large extent
(although there are exceptions) regulate their own ccTLD community, there
are policies that get developed within the technical community that also
affect technical administration and operations.

ccNSO Penetration Rate as at December 13, 2013

   - Asian Australasian Pacific Region -53%
   - African Region -54%
   - Latin American Caribbean Region -73%
   - North American Region -50%
   - European Region -46%

[This count did not include the IDN delegations]

The gaps show that there is still need for robust engagement and
participation in policy forums where participation from the wider community
is solicited. The Policy Response times also within diverse forums such as
ICANN and others should also account for language diversity and feedback
times and should be in the spirit of inclusion even if it means having
longer public comment and response periods to cater for translation,
inclusion etc.

I feel that until we know what Governments feel their priority issues are
proposing solutions would be putting the cart before the horse so to speak.

Best Regards,
Sala
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140125/14e44427/attachment.html>