[Chapter-delegates] Alejandro's question and where does ISOC stand on meaning of Montevideo?

[Rinalia Abdul Rahim]

Dear Lynn,

I appreciate your reply and explanation very much.  On the future of ICANN,
I agree that there is a third option beyond unilateral government control
and multilateral government control.  The time to effect this change is now.

Best regards,

Rinalia Abdul Rahim
ISOC MY


On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Lynn St.Amour <st.amour at isoc.org> wrote:

> Dear Dave, Alejandro, all,
>
> Please accept my very sincere apologies for not replying earlier to your
> query, but the past weeks have been (and quite unexpectedly) far too busy.
>  No excuse, it has just taken me some time to catch up on email.
>
> First, with respect to the Montevideo meeting and the press release that
> was issued afterwards -- these meetings have taken place regularly for the
> past three years (usually twice a year, several days).  They were mainly to
> build relations/common cause across the I* organizations on key issues.
> We work to understand our respective positions on these key issues with a
> goal of reaching alignment or at least ensuring no surprises.  They were
> not meant to be a "standing venue", but rather to build stronger relations
> between all organizations.  (The I* organizations are:  ISOC, IETF, IAB,
> ICANN, the 5 RIR's, IANA functions operator and W3C).  The meeting is
> chaired by me, as ISOC President & CEO, as requested by the other
> organizations.  Unlike past meetings, the I* community felt that the
> surveillance issues (and the reactions we were seeing that were affecting
> the Internet and users) were so serious that we needed to go on record, and
> hence the idea of a press release was born during the meeting.  As
> virtually all (maybe all) of the organizations had previously been on
> record for many of these points, we felt that it was appropriate to go
> forward.
>
> In the press release, we recalled that:
>
>  “the Internet and World Wide Web have brought major benefits in social
> and economic development worldwide. Both have been built and governed in
> the public interest through unique mechanisms for global multistakeholder
> Internet cooperation, which have been intrinsic to their success.
>  Furthermore, they agreed that there was a “clear need to continually
> strengthen and evolve these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be
> able to address emerging issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet”.
>
> In more concrete terms, they
>         • expressed strong concern over pervasive government suveillance
> and monitoring activities, as they were undermining of the trust and
> confidence of Internet users globally
>
>         • identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet
> Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts
> towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation.
>
>         • called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA
> functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all
> governments, participate on an equal footing.
>
>         • called for the transition to IPv6 to remain a top priority
> globally. In particular Internet content providers must serve content with
> both IPv4 and IPv6 services, in order to be fully reachable on the global
> Internet.
>
> Nothing in these statements is particularly new.  ISOC has previously
> expressed concerns about surveillance; we tried hard to catalyze community
> wide effort in the past (WCIT was a good example), played a leading role in
> promoting IPv6, etc.
>
> What attracted most attention perhaps was the call for accelerating the
> globalization of ICANN.   And, this was in line with our previously agreed
> policy.  All the I* organizations had worked closely when preparing their
> submission for the “Notice of Inquiry” and “Further Notice of Inquiry” in
> 2011. The common understanding had always been that there was no need for
> centralized control by any government, but the entire system needed time to
> mature.  And, we have always supported the continuing evolution/increasing
> independence from the USG.
>
> As a useful point of information, back in 2006, we said in our submission
> on the “Notice of Inquiry” by the National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration, on “The Continued Transition of the Technical
> Coordination and Management of the Internet Domain Name and Addressing
> System” that we encouraged:
>
>  “the US Government to take a more hands-off approach in its relationship
> to ICANN and believe[d] this is fully consistent with the original intent
> when ICANN was launched. To a significant extent, [ISOC] believe[s] the
> calls for greater multi-lateral government control over ICANN are motivated
> by the current geo-political situation and in order to minimize future
> politicization of the management of the DNS and the allocation of IP
> addresses, the Internet Society encourages the US Government to give ICANN
> more freedom following the model the US Government and many other
> governments have helped nurture over the years.”
>
> The ISOC submission continued as follows: “The debate over the future of
> ICANN has been characterized as a choice between unilateral government
> control and multilateral government control. This is a false dichotomy;
> there is a third option—no centralized management or centralized control.
> This model has served the Internet very well in regards to Internet
> standards, scalability, new innovative services, good (and still improving)
> competition and many other aspects of the Internet. This model allows
> maximum participation nationally and regionally and so should not be
> characterized as preventing any entity from participating in the governance
> of the Internet. There are many, many models of international
> non-governmental organizations which provide international coordination
> and/or influence billion-dollar industries, such as the International Red
> Cross, the SWIFT system for international banking transfers, the
> International Air Transport Association, and even, from the world of
> sports, the International Olympic Committee and FIFA. Each can provide
> useful lessons and certainly prove the feasibility of such models.”
>
> I hope this helps as a first step.  There is clearly more to talk about,
> but if I don't send this now, it will delay a response by another day as I
> have back to back meetings for the next 11 hours here at the IETF (where by
> the way there is a lot of work being done on the pervasive surveillance
> issues, and a very good IAB plenary).
>
> Best and more soon,
> Lynn
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2013, at 2:21 AM, Dave Burstein <daveb at dslprime.com> wrote:
>
> > Lynn, Markus
> >
> > I join Alejandro wondering what does it mean that ISOC signed the
> Montevideo statement and what are we really proposing.
> >
> >    If you read Montevideo and listen to Fadi on how the net can't be
> under the control of any single country, it's a Declaration of
> Independence.
> http://fastnetnews.com/dslprime/42-d/4997-first-look-declarations-of-independence-of-the-net-
> >
> > In other contexts, ISOC has strongly supported the status quo of
> (lightly exercised) U.S. legal sovereignty , so I doubt Lynn signed it in
> that spirit. Additionally, Danny S. and State seem to read it very
> differently than I do; diplomats and clear language don't mix.
> >
> >    I can't imagine a more important time for ISOC decisionmakers to be
> transparent both to the board and the membership what the heck is really
> going on. Alejandro, Vint and Theresa are deeply imbedded inside this
> process. I'm actually on the U.S. State Department ITAC and it's clear they
> don't understand what Danny is doing either.
> >
> >    Please get solid information out both in Buenos Aires and directly
> here to the members.
> >
> >    ISOC Board members: I hope you join in deeply and share what you know.
> >
> >    Lots in play, so let's use this to show that ISOC itself understands
> and implements multistakeholder and bottom up organization.
> >
> > Dave Burstein
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think that for the rest of this year, at least, there is one
> overarching issue which is understanding ICANN's strategy with actions like
> the Brazil meeting; understanding ISOC's HQ stance (this question goes back
> into the past, to before the Montevideo Statement); to have chapters and
> members heard about these issues; and last, a no-surprises agreement.
> >
> > This no-surprises agreement was first intended to occur mostly among
> chapters when we started these meetings. Now after Montevideo and the plans
> for the Brazil Internet Governance Summit we need a clear outline of where
> ISOC HQ is intending to go, and whatever exchanges that starts.
> >
> > I hope you, Markus and Lynn, and whoever is involved, can work out an
> imaginative scheme that allows the meeting to be very efficient in the
> initial setup and go straight to the matter. You may need to bottomupize
> the planning as well.
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > Alejandro Pisanty
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> > to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> > Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20131107/fc8ba09a/attachment.htm>