[discuss] Second draft - proposed Netmundial submission

Mon Mar 3 15:18:05 UTC 2014

Greg - 

I believe the points you mention were first contained in a contribution from me some time ago, so I will respond -

- the context in which they appeared was that of comparing possible future makeups for IANA to the current one, i.e, if we change, the new arrangement needs to be as good as or better than current in these areas

- the reference to rogue litigation had in mind such abuses as patent trolls in the U.S.  In general, the atmosphere of litigiousness in the US and elsewhere suggests that forethought be given to the legal base for a new arrangement

- by way of comparison to “robust,” one could think of the public benefit statute under which ICANN is currently incorporated, including features such as indemnity protections, etc.  This is not protection from justifiable suit, it is (some) protection from frivolous litigation.

- Mike

On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:52 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at ReedSmith.com> wrote:

> Ian:
>  
> Thank you for this.  It does provide food for thought and discussion.
>  
> A couple of thoughts and questions come to mind, and I’d be curious to hear what your or others think.
>  
> First, I don’t think it is accurate or supportable to say that the direction you propose has “widespread support” from the “private sector.”  My initial thought is that the private sector is largely unaware of the issue.  To the extent that the private sector is aware of the issue, I think many don’t see the current structure as a problem (and if they do, they may not see ICANN internalization as the solution).  Of course, there are a number of subsectors within the private sector, and opinions may differ within the private sector.
>  
> Second, the focus here and elsewhere on “protection of the root zone from political or other improper interference” seems to be overblown.  There don’t seem to be any particular examples of political influence on the root zone (even post-Snowden).  To the extent this is based on vague concerns about “trust” and the US Government, I have seen no evidence of USG interest in (much less incursion into or exploits aimed at) the root.  It seems to me that parties who have long wished to change the current root management scheme have seized on the current climate to try to gain ground, without satisfying any of the leaps of logic needed to get there.
>  
> Third, I am curious what you are thinking of when you mention “rogue litigation attacks”.  Are there past or current litigation matters that induced you to include this point?  If not, and it’s just a theoretical possibility, what kind of litigation are you thinking of?  And what constitutes “rogue litigation”? 
>  
> Finally, by a “legal structure that is robust” against such attacks, are you suggesting an entity that somehow cannot be sued anywhere in the world?  This seems rather dangerous (as well as highly unlikely).  Or is your primary concern/target to move away from the current structure where ICANN is a US corporation and this amenable to suit in the US?
>  
> Thanks for considering these points.
>  
> Greg Shatan
>  
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:11 PM
> To: Suzanne Woolf; John Curran
> Cc: discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: [discuss] Second draft - proposed Netmundial submission
>  
> Thanks to everyone who has made suggestions about this, both on and off list.
> 
> As a result I have made a few changes, as below. I still feel perhaps the best path is for me to submit this as an individual to keep things less complicated, unless there is a strong feeling otherwise. The deadline is March 8.
> 
> My main objective here is a roadmap; some simple steps in the right direction that will help to a achieve a good outcome. If this is made too complicated, it will go nowhere. Plenty of time to examine complexities later when we have an agreed path forward.
> 
> Here is my proposed new wording. All comments and suggested improvements welcome.
> 
>  
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
>  
> 
> DRAFT FOLLOWS
> 
>  
> 
> Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA functions under a multistakeholder governance model involving  ICANN and associated technical organisations.
> 
>  
> 
> This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only – the future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of the preferred multistakeholder model.
> 
>  
> 
> Indeed, IANA itself was established  in an era before most current internet governance institutions (eg ICANN) were in existence. The emergence of a trusted global body to take over these functions was envisaged at the time and this submission suggests that we can now proceed to transfer remaining functions to a multistakeholder model of management.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ROADMAP
> 
>  
> 
> This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer need a separate identity and would more productively merged with similar functions under the auspices of ICANN and associated technical bodies. Subject of course to many concerns about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.
> 
>  
> 
> In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the following roadmap is proposed.
> 
>  
> 
> 1.       ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of the previous IANA functions within the multistakeholder model of internet governance, including among other considerations the following criteria:
>  
> (a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper interference;
> (b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the administration of the root zone;
> (c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root zone; and
> (e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest."
> 
> 2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014.
> 
> 3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in consultation with major stakeholders.
> 
>  
> 
> 4. The solution must have the following characteristics
> 
> 
> (a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation attacks
> 
> (b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .
> 
> 
> 
> (c) is an inclusive model
> 
> (d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area
> 
>  
> 
> END DRAFT
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> From: Suzanne Woolf
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 8:52 PM
> To: John Curran
> Cc: Ian Peter ; mailto:discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Thoughts welcome on proposed Netmundial submission
>  
>  
> On Feb 28, 2014, at 12:00 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Feb 27, 2014, at 7:32 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>  
> Ian -
>  
>    Very nice writeup...  I have just a couple of comments, which you may use or
>    discard as desired.
> 
> 
>  ROADMAP
> 
>  This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer need a separate entity and would more productively merged with similar functions under the auspices of ICANN.
> 
> It is an interesting formulation of the problem statement...   At present, I would describe
> the IANA functions as "a set of tasks" rather than an "entity", and hence would instead
> phrase the purpose of a roadmap as:
>  
> "This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions (which are necessary for the secure
> and proper functioning of the Internet) that are currently administered by ICANN per
> USG contract should remain at ICANN and be performed instead under its auspices
> via the strengthening of accountability mechanisms to meet the global public interest."
>  
> I like Ian's initial note and this suggested refinement, but would also like to see some clarification regarding those IANA functions which do not relate to the DNS root.
> 
> 
>  
> Subject of course to many concerns about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.
> 
>  In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the following roadmap is proposed.
> 
> 1.       ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of the previous IANA functions within the ICANN multistakeholder model, bearing in mind the following criteria:
>  
> (a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper interference;
>  
> The above criteria confuses me - are we referring to ICANN's DNS policy development role,
> or performance of the IANA functions?   The latter are technical tasks in registry administration
> and the most important criteria would be that ICANN continue to implement all IANA registry
> functions in accordance with the respective policies (I guess one could further elaborate to
> point out that operating per respective policies means free from political or other interference,
> but that really is secondary to making sure that the IANA follows IETF protocol, RIR IP, and
> ICANN DNS policies, both presently adopted and as revised in the future.)
>  
> Right. In particular, one would hope that proper administration of the IANA functions includes protection from "improper interference" in any  of them as an initial requirement.
>  
> The IANA functions do not consist only of those related to the DNS, yet many of the suggestions and assumptions we see tend to be limited to issues and mechanisms that may apply more closely to DNS-related IANA functions than to others. It would be helpful to be clear whether we're talking about the DNS-related functions only, or the full scope of IANA's responsibilities to the internet community.
>  
>  
> best,
> Suzanne
>  
>  
>  
> 
>  
> * * *
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140303/580f34d7/attachment-0001.html>