[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 145
Phil Corwin
psc at vlaw-dc.com
Sun Mar 16 20:23:50 UTC 2014
Avri:
Agree that there must be strict separation of policy-making and administration, as that is the only means to ensure some degree of accountability. The IANA functions contract cannot simply be handed permanently to ICANN or to a body of technical organizations dominated by ICANN.
But what legal regime would you replace US law with? If there is no applicable body of law for ICANN then it is above the law and litigation-proof, and as a party interacting with private sector registries and registrars the potential for litigation enforces one type of accountability. Likewise, those contracted parties must know what body of law will interpret and enforce those contracts.
Best, Philip
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:53:43 -0400
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
Policymaking Body
Message-ID: <5325F337.2060700 at acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Hi,
One of those principles for me would be:
- Strict functional separation of the policy making and administration
I think that many, myself included, do not see how being part of ICANN and strict functionally separation are possible within ICANN's current configuration.
This may also be a big part of the expectations of global stakeholders.
There is also the issue of ICANN being subject to US law. This remains a problem if ICANN plans to keep the administrative function after transition.
avri
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of discuss-request at 1net.org
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 2:59 PM
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 145
Send discuss mailing list submissions to
discuss at 1net.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
discuss-request at 1net.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
discuss-owner at 1net.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of discuss digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [governance] NTIA statement (Mark Elkins)
2. Re: [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
Policymaking Body (Avri Doria)
3. Re: [governance] NTIA statement (Alejandro Pisanty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 19:46:06 +0200
From: Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za>
To: 1 Net List <discuss at 1net.org>
Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
Message-ID: <1394991966.7451.155.camel at mjelap.posix.co.za>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
I agree with you Adiel.
Some people may envy the US regarding their ability to do Mass Surveillance...
And the Internet may be one avenue in order to do Mass Surveillance...
And Mass Surveillance will continue..
NTIA and its statement though have nothing to do with Mass Surveillance.
I welcome NTIA's statement and I believe that the future around ICANN and Internet Governance is going to be interesting, just not too interesting please.
On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 18:10 +0400, Adiel Akplogan wrote:
> I?m disagreeing with the statement that started this thread which
> tries to link both issues. Mass surveillance will continue but the
> NTIA statement related to IANA function (that we are talking about -
> subject
> line) was not meant to tell us anything about mass surveillance (or
> reflects USG position on the future of Mass surveillance). So an
> attempt to link the two will be a tentative of distraction.
>
> - a.
> On Mar 16, 2014, at 17:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > sent from Google nexus 4
> > kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> > On 16 Mar 2014 13:48, "Adiel Akplogan" <adiel at afrinic.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > I disagree as well.
> > You disagree with what Adiel, that mass surveillance continues?
> >
> > >
> > In this discussion it is very important to dissociate the USG/NTIA by role in the performance of IANA function by ICANN and the issue related to mass surveillance. The two are not technically linked and should be addressed separately.
> > >
> > I agree to this and that was why I qualified my comment with the relevant department.
> >
> > Regards
> > > - a.
> > >
> > > On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well I would not disagree that mass surveillance indeed continues.
> > > >
> > > > Any NSA statement that says otherwise?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers!
> > > > sent from Google nexus 4
> > > > kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> > > >
> > > > On 15 Mar 2014 19:08, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
> > > > Disagree,
> > > >
> > > > Different department.
> > > >
> > > > j
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the "internet freedom" smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion for the show.
> > > >
> > > > Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?
> > > >
> > > > Louis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
> > > > visit:
> > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > > >
> > > > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > > >
> > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC -
> > > > http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
> > > > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > -
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > discuss mailing list
> > > > discuss at 1net.org
> > > > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > discuss mailing list
> > > > discuss at 1net.org
> > > > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--
. . ___. .__ Posix Systems - (South) Africa
/| /| / /__ mje at posix.co.za - Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 Cell: +27 82 601 0496
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:53:43 -0400
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web
Policymaking Body
Message-ID: <5325F337.2060700 at acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Hi,
One of those principles for me would be:
- Strict functional separation of the policy making and administration
I think that many, myself included, do not see how being part of ICANN and strict functionally separation are possible within ICANN's current configuration.
This may also be a big part of the expectations of global stakeholders.
There is also the issue of ICANN being subject to US law. This remains a problem if ICANN plans to keep the administrative function after transition.
avri
On 16-Mar-14 13:32, Steve Crocker wrote:
> Greg, et al,
>
> I do not read NTIA?s announcement as calling for the creation of a new
> organization nor the movement or replacement of the current contract
> with another contract. Instead, I believe NTIA is asking for the
> community to think through how to replace the role the NTIA has
> performed, which is only a review of the root zone update actions and
> ICANN?s processes and reporting.
>
> I think it would be very helpful to everyone to focus first on coming
> up with a list of *issues* and *principles* before suggesting specific
> mechanisms or solutions. By ?issue? I mean a problem that needs to be
> solved or an aspect of the current arrangement that is not
> satisfactory in some fashion. And the focus here really needs to be
> on the functions covered by the current IANA contract. Issues related
> to gTLD contractual matters, overall organization of ICANN, non-ICANN
> matters such as network surveillance by various governments, etc. are
> quite far outside the scope. There are other venues for discussing
> those topics.
>
> By ?principles? I mean qualities that need to be preserved going
> forward.
>
> If the community can agree on a set of issues and principles, I think
> the path forward will be much clearer. If the issues and principles
> are in place, choosing a specific mechanism becomes, to use the
> tongue-in-cheek phrasing from the technical community, just an
> implementation detail.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2014, at 12:59 PM, Shatan, Gregory S.
> <GShatan at ReedSmith.com> wrote:
>
>> At the most basic level, the NTIA is going to assign the IANA
>> Contract to the new organization created by this process ("NewOrg"),
>> so that NewOrg steps into the shoes of the NTIA.
>>
>> Then the question becomes should the IANA Contract be "revised" or
>> "renegotiated" as part of the process to add to, subtract from or
>> modify the privileges and obligations of NewOrg and ICANN? By what
>> process and who will be involved? And -- is this question set even
>> on the table? Or is the contract being assigned "as is "?
>>
>> Also, what will NewOrg look like? What form, what domicile, what
>> governance? This is probably the question set more directly asked as
>> a result of the NTIA announcement.
>>
>> Greg Shatan -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry
>> Wireless Device
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: John Curran
>> [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 09:24 AM
>> To: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> Cc: 1Net List
>> <discuss at 1net.org>; <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance]
>> U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web Policymaking Body
>>
>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Furthermore, I would refer people back to the IGP plan, and the call
>>> to separate the globalization/reform of the IANA functions from the
>>> broader and more difficult reforms that must be made in ICANN's
>>> policy making process, domicile, etc. Parminder's comments confuse
>>> these two things.
>>
>> The existing co-mingling of overall Internet identifier coordination
>> role, DNS policy development role, and IANA administration and
>> implementation role (all within ICANN) does make it difficult at
>> times to keep track of which aspect we are talking about at any given
>> moment...
>>
>>> Let's do one thing at a time, so that each can be done right. The
>>> distinction between ICANN's policy process, its corporate domicile,
>>> its contracts with registries, etc., with the globalization of the
>>> IANA functions has been reiterated many times on this list. We don't
>>> have to change everything about ICANN in one stage. Once the IANA
>>> functions are dealt with, a lot of options open up regarding the
>>> policy process.
>>
>> I'd like to explore the various roles just a bit, so I can better
>> understand what is really proposed in "the IGP plan". To do this,
>> I'd like to consider the tasks performed for the generic case of IANA
>> protocol parameter registries and then for the specific case of the
>> DNS root zone registry, as revised per the IGP proposal.
>>
>> (I'll spare repeating all of the IETF registry background, but one
>> can refer to for
>> <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-March/002434.html>
>> for reference)
>>
>> When the IETF specifies a protocol, there are often associated
>> registries. To a rough approximation, the IESG is the policy
>> development body (as it works with the community via working groups
>> and approves the registry creation via the "IANA Considerations'
>> section of an RFC) and the IAB is the registry authority. Via the
>> mechanisms in RFC 6220 and per an MOU with ICANN (RFC 2860), the IAB
>> has arranged for ICANN to perform the IANA registry administration
>> and operations tasks. In this role, IANA receives requests from
>> third parties to make entries in any IETF registry, and if they
>> conform with the established policy for the registry then the entry
>> is made. This approach encourages both clarity of registry policy as
>> well as fair and impartial administration of the registry itself.
>>
>> The IAB also noted that some general-propose registries (DNS names
>> and IP addresses) pose "policy issues", and per the MOU with ICANN
>> recognizes that ICANN may have policy which affect how those
>> registries (such as the DNS root zone) are administered (and this is
>> a good thing because the the IANA function contract with NTIA
>> specifically calls for the IANA to follow ICANN policy when
>> processing DNS root zone requests...)
>>
>> With respect to DNS root zone, there is a significant difference
>> being proposed in the roles under the IGP proposal, in that you have
>> ICANN-sans-IANA performing policy development _and_ policy
>> administration roles, i.e. from reading, it is hard to tell if your
>> new "DNSA" is only performing the clerical registry operations task,
>> as opposed to the actual administration of policy via processing of
>> incoming requests for changes from the community -
>>
>> "The DNSA would require a binding contract with ICANN regarding the
>> conditions under which it would agree to implement changes in the
>> root zone or other associated databases to reflect policies emerging
>> from ICANN?s policy development processes. The contract should ensure
>> that the DNSA has no policy authority but merely implements valid
>> requests for additions or deletions emerging from ICANN?s policy
>> process."
>>
>> From the above, is the determination of a "valid request" performed
>> first by ICANN (and the result send to DNSA for processing), or does
>> DNSA receive the "raw" request and make the determination of validity
>> in accordance with the established policy? I believe you intended the
>> former: ICANN-sans-IANA would the body which performs policy
>> administration and it then sends only clerical direction for registry
>> update to the DNSA, but could potentially read the proposal either
>> way.
>>
>> Thoughts? /John
>>
>> Disclaimer: My views alone.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 12:58:55 -0600
From: Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com>
To: Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Cc: 1 Net List <discuss at 1net.org>, Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net>,
Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC
<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
Message-ID:
<CAOxRbV_sFxPdZd7xUTWhM1CMVJyEO9txJ+V036c1W1rvMjb=TA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Wolfgang,
"on top" triggers - once again - concerns about the delusion of One World Government and of The Bigger Brother To End All Big Brothers. I hope NetMundial does not become *that* design workshop.
A much more effective approach for the NTIA-substitution problem may be to engage in its design, as suggested by Steve Crocker in this same thread, and identify gaps, missing links or missing components which may have to be built elsewhere and by others. Then state those as clear requirements and have plans for the case they do not materialize or go wrong.
As for Steve Crocker's key call for issues and principles: it may be useful at this point to look at the set of principles analyzed and proposed by the Strategy Panel on ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem https://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecosystem/report-23feb14-en.pdf
>From these, even for the design of an NTIA-function substitute which is
>a
pretty constrained problem, the principles of technical rationality, loose coupling and reciprocity may be particularly relevant. The first also mandates stabilitiy, security and resilience as very strong design constraints.
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> 1+ Adiel.
>
> A good performance of the IANA functions is a pre-condition that the
> Internet works and can be used by all kind of governmental and
> non_governmental players for good and bad things. The publication of a
> TLD zone file in the root doesn?t say anything what the Registrant of
> a domain name is doing with the domain. And it has nothing to do with
> third party?s attack on this domains by blocking, filtering, hacking,
> manipulating, spying etc. The problem is that so far there not enough
> multi-stakeholder places where users and providers of services can go
> to look for (policy and
> technical) arrangements to counter bad things. This is one challenge
> for Net Mundial. It should discuss what on top of a multi-stakehoder
> managed technical layer (which includes the termination of the
> transition of the IANA function to the network of the
> multistakleholder I* organizations) should be done to have
> multi-stakehooder mechanisms on the content/political layer. We know
> that the two lyers are interconnected, but they are two different
> shoes. New multistakeholder policy mechanisms will not emerge over
> night. But Sao Paulo can start the process and deliver a Multistakeholder Internet Governance Roadmap 2020 (MINGORO 2020).
>
> wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Adiel Akplogan
> Gesendet: So 16.03.2014 13:47
> An: Seun Ojedeji
> Cc: 1 Net List; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC
> Betreff: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
>
>
>
> I disagree as well. In this discussion it is very important to
> dissociate the USG/NTIA by role in the performance of IANA function by
> ICANN and the issue related to mass surveillance. The two are not
> technically linked and should be addressed separately.
>
> - a.
>
> On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well I would not disagree that mass surveillance indeed continues.
> >
> > Any NSA statement that says otherwise?
> >
> > Cheers!
> > sent from Google nexus 4
> > kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> >
> > On 15 Mar 2014 19:08, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
> > Disagree,
> >
> > Different department.
> >
> > j
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well)
> > <pouzin at well.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the "internet freedom"
> smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion for the show.
> >
> > Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?
> >
> > Louis
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC -
> > http://wwwhatsup.com <http://wwwhatsup.com/> http://pinstand.com
> > <http://pinstand.com/> - http://punkcast.com <
> http://punkcast.com/>
> > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org <http://isoc-ny.org/>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Qu?mica UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE M?XICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140316/b5e451a3/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
End of discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 145
***************************************
More information about the discuss
mailing list