[discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web Policymaking Body
gurstein at gmail.com
Sat Mar 15 21:55:44 UTC 2014
To clarify re: my comments/suggestions below, I take the NTIA's statement
which notably begins "To support and enhance the multistakeholder model of
Internet policymaking and governance, the NTIA today announces." as pointing
to the broader role that the USG appears to be promoting for MSism in
overall "Internet policymaking and governance" and not specifically to the
transfer/governance/oversight of the DNS/IANA function.
From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 2:37 PM
To: michael gursteinCc: comptoir at cafedu.com; 1Net List
Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
On Mar 15, 2014, at 5:19 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
As I mentioned before, I think it is unrealistic to expect proposals
concerning broad based Internet Governance structures to be pulled holus
bolus out of a hat...
Agreed, but I will note however that the question of phasing out NTIA's
oversight of the
IANA is not necessarily the same question as determining structures for
Internet Governance"... much of that depends on what you expect the
to cover: simply IANA tasks (which are administrative/clerical in nature)
or the entire
registry system, including oversight of policy development, etc.
I do think however, that realistic places to start are
1. an articulation of goals, norms, values to underlie
whatever structures of governance are established e.g.
. Does the proposed mechanism have sufficient means to ensure
. Does the proposed mechanism have sufficient means to
. Is the proposed mechanism inclusive of normative as well as
identity based diversity
. Does the proposed mechanism have a foundation in generally
accepted rights based norms and practices
. Does the proposed mechanism have a foundation in principles and
practices supportive of the public interest and the public good
. Are there means in place to accommodate and enable conflict
2. an identification of risks, threats and procedures for an effective
response to e.g.
. Are there means in place to identify and resist capture
. Are there means in place to identify and resist subversion
. Are there means to overcome resource imbalance as between
participants restricting effective participation
. Are there means available to identify and resist inappropriate
. Are there means to overcome systematic exclusion
And of course these lists are not complete nor without controversy. In fact,
a first order of business should be the review of these lists and the
development of a process for articulating and validating these elements.
Your process above (and initial lists) seem like an excellent suggestion
to start this process (and hopefully will be considered by those on this
list). I do
know know what process has been envisioned for development of IANA
plan (other than the materials accompanying the NTIA release) nor what
of Netmundial discussion on Internet governance will touch on these
A (preferably critical and independent) analysis of the MS experience with
the IETF and ICANN processes would be a useful place to start but
recognizing the highly significant differences between decisions made
concerning largely technical issues and decisions made concerning largely
Good question - I am not aware of any such studies with respect to IETF
processes; I am
sure that folks on this list can suggest several critical analyses of
ICANN's MS decisional
processes (simply because ICANN tends to get more attention than the IETF
Disclaimer: My views alone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss