[discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Mar 18 10:58:01 UTC 2014

Agree with George,

There is a serious need for this thought experiment.

Lets devote at least half of our consciousness to this thought 
experiment - take it that ICANN side problems are all solved.

What other things, perhaps more important than 'ICANN issues' is 
NetMundial supposed to address.

I do not agree with George or Nick that non 'ICANN side issues' are not 
Internet governance issues. But lets discuss different positions on 
these issues in any case..


On Monday 17 March 2014 10:42 PM, George Sadowsky wrote:
> All,
> I would like to focus on a broader issue raised by the interesting 
> discussion below.   It has been touched on before, but I think it's 
> useful to go somewhat further.
> I see the issue as what is the appropriate domain of 'Internet 
> governance' concerns.  And that leads immediately to what we think the 
> domain of concern of "Internet governance' is, i.e. how we define it.
> *I'd like to propose a thought experiment.*  Suppose that by 30 
> September 2015, somehow "we" have created an appropriate 
> accountability mechanism to replace NTIA's current responsibilities.   
> Further, suppose that (1) NTIA accepted it and proceeded to make the 
> transfer to the new mechanism, and (2) there was very broad general 
> agreement across multiple stakeholder groups globally that this was a 
> transition that was worth supporting.
> *What, then, would we discuss next?*
> *On the one hand*, some of us argue that Internet governance is really 
> the appropriate construction of Internet administration and 
> coordination mechanisms, with their appropriate oversight, and that 
> issues of content and behavior need to be discussed in more general 
> contexts. Nick Ashton-Hart argues this persuasively.  As an example, I 
> would find it unproductive to discuss surveillance in the Internet 
> unless it were within a more general context of surveillance policy. 
>  In that context, I see the Internet as another tool, such as using 
> hidden cameras and microphones, tapping voice phone lines and 
> intercepting postal mail.
> *On the other hand*, it's clear that the introduction of the Internet 
> has introduced both qualitative and quantitative changes in many areas 
> of life and of human behavior, and that mechanisms dealing with them 
> have not caught up to dealing with the Internet's disruptive 
> influence.  Such problems often have (at least) two aspects, one 
> technical and the other societal.  I would not characterize these as 
> Internet governance problems, but rather problems with respect to 
> general governance caused or exacerbated by the Introduction of the 
> Internet.
> So back to the thought experiment.  If we really do solve the 
> accountability and administrative issues related to ICANN and IANA in 
> a manner that is widely accepted (admittedly a stretch, but it works 
> for a thought experiment), then that is off the agenda.  What's next 
> on the "Internet governance" agenda, and why?  Do the venues for those 
> discussions change, or not?  Does the label by which we refer o those 
> discussions change, or not?   What is your "to do" list for Internet 
> governance after an IANA final solution:
> 1. ....
> 2. ....
> 3. ....
> 4. ....
> ....
> Opinions welcome.
> Finally, if you believe that there is nothing left after an IANA final 
> solution, then it might be useful to suggest some of the specify 
> issues that you exclude, and suggest suggest specific venues and 
> processes that that represent the correct way forward to address those 
> problems.
> This is really the issue of what Internet governance is, and is not. 
>  The WGIG definition had enough creative generality to navigate a 
> process through the political environment of WSIS, but now we are 
> addressing more specific issues.  We lack descriptive terms that have 
> enough specificity for us to be able to even discuss them without 
> stumbling over definitional differences.   That kind of stumbling is 
> not a good use of resources.  If we do not share what a word or a 
> phrase means, I don't see how we can discuss it sensibly.  Responses 
> to the proposed thought experiment might yield some clarity on this point.
> My sense is that the terms 'Internet coordination' and 'Internet 
> administration' are unused terms that could be used to clarify 
> discussions, but for some reason they have not been adopted by many 
> others.  Using more precise and shared terms to discuss the issues 
> within  the different strata of Vint's diagram, sent in an earlier 
> e-mail, would IMO be very helpful in making progress in these 
> discussions.
> Let's concentrate on recognizing, defining and identifying problems 
>  ---  it's more important and, at least for me, more satisfying than 
> semantic arguments.
> George
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:22 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org 
> <mailto:nashton at ccianet.org>> wrote:
>> Dear Seun, inline responses
>> On 17 Mar 2014, at 10:11, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Hello Nick,
>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart 
>>> <nashton at ccianet.org <mailto:nashton at ccianet.org>> wrote:
>>>     I disagree.
>>>     The international community does need a way to discuss
>>>     surveillance - but Internet governance is not that venue, for
>>>     the simple reason that the surveillance issue is about
>>>     surveillance and not the Internet.
>>>     The issue of mass surveillance is really asking the question of
>>>     how do countries treat non-nationals in their national security
>>>     activities. The fact that the Internet is used as a tool for
>>>     surveillance is really irrelevant to the question, just as the
>>>     Internet is used for distribution of illegal material like those
>>>     related to child exploitation but that is primarily an
>>>     enforcement of laws issue, not an Internet issue.
>>>     IG does not need to be about everything where there is an
>>>     Internet dimension - or no solution to any problem can be found.
>>>     However: the political demands for action over surveillance are
>>>     impacting the Internet as we all know - so we do have a vested
>>>     interest in ensuring that the core issue of mass surveillance is
>>>     addressed, just not primarily by us, and not in IG.
>>> Just to get the flow right, when you say "us" whom do you refer? and 
>>> when you say mass surveillance is not an IG issue then what issue is 
>>> it? My expectation is that the IG platform will provide an avenue to 
>>> discuss the issue and then propose solutions which countries will 
>>> then turn to legal content applicable to them. If the issues are not 
>>> discussed then it will be difficult to know what they are and 
>>> address them. Bringing then to IG fora will help give it a voice 
>>> that could hopefully get to the listening hears of government and 
>>> relevant authorities.
>> "Us" meaning the IG community. As to what issue it is, it is, as I 
>> described, an issue of surveillance, not the Internet. So, the human 
>> rights dimensions are currently being actively addressed in the Human 
>> Rights Council and related processes. The exchange of data for 
>> criminal and national security purposes are governed by MLATs (Mutual 
>> Legal Assistance Treaties) - Access.org <http://access.org/> has an 
>> excellent website devoted to MLAT reform at www.mlat.info 
>> <http://www.mlat.info/>.
>> Bringing this issue to IG fora will harmfully conflate issues which 
>> have nothing to do with IG with IG issues, and contaminate (further) 
>> Internet governance with a great deal of politicisation. I would hope 
>> that we all don't want to see the security, stability, and 
>> universality of the Internet further polluted with politics of 
>> national security and safety.
>>> As per the NetMundial, i agree with Avri that from recent 
>>> happenings, ICANN-IANA related issues may carry the majority of the 
>>> agenda which ofcourse was not the only reason why the event was 
>>> conjured in the first place. However since the ICANN-IANA discussion 
>>> will start from ICANN49 i think some foundational progress will have 
>>> been made to further lighten up the NetMundial agenda to accommodate 
>>> the other half of the goal which is largely related to mass 
>>> surveillance.
>> I think if NetMundial is consumed with ICANN issues that will be both 
>> a mistake and a huge missed opportunities. Finding a way to agree on 
>> principles, and what is, and is not, appropriate for IG policy to 
>> address would be a significant added value; there is also no other 
>> global forum designed to produce outcomes along these lines. The 
>> discussion of internationalizing ICANN has a home for discussions: ICANN.
>>> I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with recent development on 
>>> ICANN-IANA, as it is good news. However we should also not let that 
>>> overwhelm the other present concerns. Lets remember that the 
>>> ICANN-IANA processes is to prevent the future "what-IFs" while mass 
>>> surveillance on the other hand is currently happening and we should 
>>> not neglect that.
>> "we" cannot solve national security issues. All we can do is insist 
>> that the various aspects of national security use of data and the 
>> rules by which non-nationals are treated are dealt with - in the fora 
>> where they are already under discussion.
>>> Regards
>>> Cheers!
>>>     On 17 Mar 2014, at 06:16, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>     On Sunday 16 March 2014 09:51 PM, Victor Ndonnang wrote:
>>>>>     +1 Adiel.
>>>>>     Surveillance and intelligence agencies was there before the
>>>>>     Internet. Even
>>>>>     if the Internet has a role in the mass surveillance...USG/NTIA
>>>>>     intent to
>>>>>     transfer IANA and root zone management related to the global
>>>>>     independent
>>>>>     Multistakeholder entity is not a response to the mass
>>>>>     surveillance issue.
>>>>     Agree, developments on the ICANN oversight issue do not
>>>>     constitute any real response to mass surveillance problem. And
>>>>     since NetMundial came out of a series of events directly
>>>>     connected to the mass surveillance problem, and which is the
>>>>     main reason the 'global community' invested into it, it is only
>>>>     fair to the people across the world that we have
>>>>     1. discussions on this issues, and others related to larger
>>>>     international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet , and
>>>>     2. come up with proposals regarding these issues.
>>>>     I have seen almost nil work on this list in this regard. ICANN
>>>>     oversight issue should not be allowed to overshadow  these much
>>>>     more important and pressing global public policy issues. I fear
>>>>     this is what is happening. A good reason of course is
>>>>     structural about what 1Net is.
>>>>     parminder
>>>>>     May be that Global Multistakeholder entity will be the IETF or
>>>>>     I... to help
>>>>>     strengthen security, privacy and trust on the Internet.
>>>>>     The Internet Governance is mainly a technical thing, let's
>>>>>     leave the
>>>>>     technical community takes care of it with the full
>>>>>     participation and inputs
>>>>>     of others stakeholders.
>>>>>     Regards,
>>>>>     Victor.
>>>>>     -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>>     De : discuss-bounces at 1net.org
>>>>>     <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org>
>>>>>     [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] De la part
>>>>>     de Adiel Akplogan
>>>>>     Envoyé : Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:48 AM
>>>>>     À : Seun Ojedeji
>>>>>     Cc : 1 Net List; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC
>>>>>     Objet : 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 <mailto: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
>>>>>>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>>>>     <mailto: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 <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>>>>     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
>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>     discuss mailing list
>>>>>     discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>>>     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
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     discuss mailing list
>>>     discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>     http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> -- 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     /Seun Ojedeji,
>>>     Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>>>     web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>
>>>     Mobile: +2348035233535
>>>     //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>>>     <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>/
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140318/1a53b0f8/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list