<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<STYLE><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:633607033;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-415454000 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US dir=ltr link=blue vLink=purple>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>I think Milton’s post has helped towards clarity here, although I dont
agree with all of his suggestions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For me, the way forward is Option 3 - <SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" color=#1f497d>De-nationalization of the IANA function;
ie., removal of USG control and delegation of it to ICANN.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" color=#1f497d></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
color=#1f497d> Either unilateral
control(Option1) or multilateral control (Option 2) are unacceptable and
unnecessarily cumbersome for what are simple administrative functions, so it’s a
no-brainer.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><FONT
color=#1f497d></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><FONT
color=#1f497d>T This is the simplest path. There
obviously would need to be some negotiation about the role of GAC in all of
this, but so be it.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><FONT
color=#1f497d></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><FONT
color=#1f497d> The advantage of this direction is
it actually has some possibility of succeeding in the short to medium term if we
can get some general stakeholder agreement that this is the best direction. If
this group could agree to pursue this direction, I think groups like the EU and
a number of governments would follow. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><FONT
color=#1f497d></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><FONT
color=#1f497d>T This would require some minor rewriting of the
IANA procedures and processes by ICANN to present a detailed proposal for
discussion and adoption. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><FONT
color=#1f497d></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><FONT
color=#1f497d>I Ian Peter</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><FONT
color=#1f497d></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><FONT
color=#1f497d></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><FONT
color=#1f497d></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=mueller@syr.edu
href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">Milton L Mueller</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:47 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=george.sadowsky@gmail.com
href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com">George Sadowsky</A> ; <A
title=discuss@1net.org
href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">mailto:discuss@1net.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=jovank@diplomacy.edu
href="mailto:jovank@diplomacy.edu">Jovan Kurbalija</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no.
1"</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">George.
You did not quite get the 3 options right. They were:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoListParagraph
style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><SPAN
style="mso-list: ignore">1)<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Unilateral
control by 1 govt (the status quo)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoListParagraph
style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><SPAN
style="mso-list: ignore">2)<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Multilateral
control <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoListParagraph
style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><SPAN
style="mso-list: ignore">3)<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">De-nationalization
of the IANA function; ie., removal of USG control and delegation of it to ICANN.
Note well: this does NOT require exclusion of governments from all involvement
in ICANN.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">What
you propose as a solution, “one based upon multistkeholderism,” is actually an
attempt to avoid coming to grips with difference between #2 and #3. By
attempting to do this, you are seriously muddying the waters at a time that we
need absolutely clarity. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">EITHER
root zone changes are the responsibility of ICANN, in which case you are
advocating #3 (because ICANN is not an intergovernmental organization) OR
governments have some kind of special authority over root zone changes, in which
case your solution devolves to #2. Please decide which one you are advocating. I
will not let you waffle.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">What
you’ve done in an attempt to discredit the de-nationalization option is to
pretend that if we devolve control to ICANN, that governments are excluded
entirely from the process. This is obviously false. Governments currently play a
major role in ICANN, via GAC advice. So one could easily cut the cord to the
USG, vest the IANA function in ICANN fully, and governments would still be
involved. Even if the GAC were dismantled, as some of us favor, it is still
completely possible and indeed desirable for individuals who work for or are
contracted by governments to participate in ICANN. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Some
of us are proposing to reform the role of governments in ICANN to make it
consistent with a truly equal-status, multistakeholder <A
name=_MailEndCompose>governance process. I am really getting tired of hearing,
as a response to these proposals, that “governments are a part of our world and
we can’t ignore or exclude then.” That is either a dishonest or a completely
clueless response. By eliminating special powers for governments and avoiding
intergovernmental control, we are not proposing to completely exclude
governments from the process. We are simply proposing to adhere more
consistently to the MS model and give government agencies and employees the same
status as everyone else. <o:p></o:p></A></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Milton
Mueller<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">Professor,
Syracuse University School of Information Studies<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><A href="http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #0563c1">http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d">></SPAN>The third approach is
in my view equally unrealistic. Governments are <SPAN
style="COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d">></SPAN>a
part of our world. They have useful and essential functions We
depend upon the creation and evolution of legal structures along with the
administrative and judicial mechanisms that institutes and implement them.
We may be concerned with their inappropriate use of power, but we can’t deny
that they have a place at the table. We are likely, however, to differ
about what that place is and what limitations might be put upon them.<BR><BR>The
second approach, one based upon multistakeholderism, seems like the only viable
and significantly acceptable one. While that choice may be comforting in
terms of its inclusive orientation, the space of solutions that could be called
multistakeholder is vast and multidimensional, with the only necessary condition
for being in the set is that all relevant stakeholder groups, however defined,
have some degree of inclusion into the process and that no one group has an
absolute veto over the activities of the group. Distributions of power,
representation, and decision making authority all vary, possibly enormously
among stakeholder groups. The very choice of what groups are included and
who they include contributes to the diversity among solutions. (For
example, while ICANN correctly claims to be organized according to a
multistakeholder model, in fact it is organized in accordance with a very
specific and well-defined instantiation of the multistakeholder
model.)<BR><BR>So if we are going to talk about multi-stakeholder approaches to
the problem, we will need to differentiate between a variety of them that might
be suggested. Saying that an approach is a multi-stakeholder approach is
not sufficient; it will need to be characterized in a more definite
manner.<BR><BR>Finally, any approach that will be successful must make the great
majority of us comfortable with its ability to maintain security, stability, and
independence of the Internet’s fundamental naming and addressing systems, and
with its ability to withstand takeover by any special interests.
Governments, including the US government, must be an integral part of that
majority if any transition is to be feasible and ultimately successful.
Solutions that do not meet this criterion, and are not demonstrably better than
what we have now, should not and will not be
adopted.<BR><BR><BR><B><U>Incremental approaches</U></B><BR><BR>Assuming that
there are continuity and stability virtues in minimizing the amount of change
that is made, I ask myself: are there acceptable solutions to the problem that
minimize the account of change needed? In which direction would they
go? I personally don’t have a good answer for that. Perhaps others
do.<BR><BR><BR><B><U>Diplomatic approaches, from Jovan
Kurbalija</U></B><BR><BR>In a recent provocative article, Jovan Kurbalija
has outlined a number of scenarios that find their rationale in established
diplomatic behavior. The article, at:<BR><BR><SPAN
class=apple-tab-span>
</SPAN><A
href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/international-inviolability-root-zone">http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/international-inviolability-root-zone</A><BR><BR>contains
the following scenarios. I include them here because I think they
represent serious approaches to the issue we’re discussing. They may or
may not be practical.<BR><BR><BR><o:p></o:p></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt">
<P class=MsoNormal>USE DIPLOMATIC LAW APPROACH TO SOLVE THE POLICY PROBLEM OF
THE ROOT ZONE<BR><BR>The predominantly symbolic relevance of the root zone
issue has created the basis for an analogy with diplomatic law, which deals
with another highly symbolic issue: representation of countries. It
includes diplomatic precedence, the protection of diplomatic buildings, and
the main functions of representation.[3] How can the regulation of symbolic
aspects of diplomatic relations help in regulating the symbolic aspects of
Internet politics? Here are two possibilities:<BR><BR>The first possibility
could be described as a ‘physical’ one, making the server and root database
inviolable, in particular from any national jurisdiction. This possibility
opens the question of where the root server will be located. It could be
located at the UN premises in New York and Geneva, which would simplify
matters, since those entities already enjoy inviolability, including immunity
from any national jurisdiction. Another option, such as continuing to use the
current location would require changes in the US national law, in order to
ensure international inviolability of the root database. One could also
consider assigning root zone file immunity as part of an ICANN+ arrangement
(making ICANN a quasi-international organisation – discussed further down in
the text). [4]<BR><BR>The second possibility, which is a ‘virtual’ one: the
root database should be assigned inviolabilityper se, wherever it is located.
This solution is based on the analogy with diplomatic law which specifies that
‘[t]he archives and documents of the mission shall be inviolable at any time
and wherever they may be.’ (i.e. article 24 of the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations).<BR><BR>In this way, the root database can enjoy
inviolability according to international law. Neither the USA, nor any
other authority, can interfere with the root database without necessary
authorization. This could be the first phase in the policy process, which
could build trust, and prepare for the second phase, which has to deal with
the more difficult question:<BR><BR>WHO WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND THE ROOT
DATABASE?<BR><BR>Here we get back to the question of decision-making process
and the status of ICANN. This has been exhaustively discussed, and it is
clear that a workable solution should be based on a high level of inclusion,
transparency, and checks and balances. As a practical solution for the root
zone file, one could think of a double key system, involving a strengthened
ICANN, with a stronger role for the GAC (to some extent codifying and
formalizing what has been happening through the growing relevance of the GAC).
A possible role for a reformed UN Trusteeship council could also be
considered, as one of the actors in this checks and balances
system.<BR><BR>ICANN’s new quasi-international status, for example, following
Swiss laws, could address most of the above-mentioned points. Shifting ICANN
from the national to the international level, would require ensuring ICANN’s
accountability towards consumers, users, and the Internet industry. Immunity
should not be impunity. Again, here we could have a solution through the
interplay between international public law and private law options.<BR><BR>HOW
TO ACHIEVE THE NEW ROOT ZONE ARRANGEMENT?<BR><BR>The closest analogy is the
governance of the Red Cross system. Analogous to the Geneva conventions in the
humanitarian field, ‘a root convention’ would minimally grant immunity to the
root database, and maximally specify how the root database would be managed.
If the adoption of a root zone file convention would be too complex, one could
consider an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, which
could recognize the ‘instant’ customary law (practice of the US government of
not interfering in countries' domain names without the consent of these
countries). Either a convention or instant customary law would provide a
functional basis for ICANN, which could be a quasi-international organisation,
with a carefully balanced checks and balances approach, and a prominent role
for the GAC. Such an ICANN+ would both host the root server, and manage the
root database.<BR><BR>There are some other solutions and possibilities. The
bottom line is that there is a solution that could be both practical and
legal. The symbolic issue of the root zone, at least, could be put to rest,
and allow us to spend ‘policy energy’ on more practical and relevant issues.
It could be also be a reasonable compromise.<o:p></o:p></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><BR><B><U>Conclusion</U></B><BR><BR>It’s quite
possible that all of the above is a product of too limited thinking, and that an
alternative, more comprehensive and high level approach looking at the entire
Internet ecosystem as a whole might be more fruitful. If so, what might
such an approach be based upon, and why might it look like? Perhaps on
further reflection, and considering possible approaches to it, we may find that
the problem definition is lacking, and needs modification or
amplification. If so, that represented profess of a certain kind.<BR><BR>I
present the above as my thoughts regarding possible approaches, with a large
contribution from Jovan. I admit to not having good answers to the
problem, but I hope that the above material is helpful to starting a serious
discussion. If there is any appetite on the list to continue this
discussion, I, and possibly others, would be interested in your
comments.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>George<BR><BR><BR><o:p></o:p></P></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>discuss mailing
list<BR>discuss@1net.org<BR>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>