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

Wed Mar 19 00:55:28 UTC 2014

Parminder,

the logical next step is to ask you to resend your message complete with
what seems to be an involuntarily ommitted part, the list of issues you
consider should be dealt with.

Alejandro Pisanty

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:58 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  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..
>
> parminder
>
>  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>
> wrote:
>
>  Dear Seun, inline responses
>
>  On 17 Mar 2014, at 10:11, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Hello Nick,
>  On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <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.
>
>  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> 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<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>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *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
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://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 Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO 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/20140318/85a2848d/attachment-0001.html>