[Chapter-delegates] [Internet Policy] [IANAxfer] An initial proposalregarding IANA development
Christian de Larrinaga
cdel at firsthand.net
Fri Mar 28 03:26:21 PDT 2014
I slightly disagree.
Currently the basis for multi stakeholder as opposed to multi lateral is
to model engagement as from the bottom up.
Those directly responsible such as IANA, IETF, and some other activities
such as RIRs have done a good job at engaging direct stakeholders whilst
remaining open to all. The price of entry is having enough"clue" to
participate meaningfully. That is quite a high bar. Others such as the
RSS are still a bit of a black art.
What is less successful has been engaging what I call "indirect"
stakeholders. Those people who ultimately fund the system - the users or
netizens. At the moment we have a "supply side" stakeholder model not a
"netizen" model. This is encouraging policy that views users of the
Internet as "consumers" not "participants". In the end this sells the
prospects for connectivity through deployment of data networks short.
Partly "localism" has almost become a foreign concept in ICANN I fear.
This trends policy inside the bottle rather outside and so words like
"compliance" especially in reference to local responsibilities such as
ccTLDs are rather dangerous routes to mission creep. It might be "nice"
to stabilise "industry" practices but it needs very gentle handling. It
is also proven that jurisdictions will enforce local law and practice
for ccTLDs but also registries of gTLDs as well.
Rather than having a global "regulator" boiling the depths of the policy
ocean it is going to be very important for ICANN not to creep over the
fence and impose its "stake holder" discipline globally but rather
support co-ordination around the world by encouraging and assisting the
evolution of local stakeholder institutions that learn how to focus
their own and global engagement as well.
At the moment this level of building stakeholder clue locally around the
world is very patchy. Local IGF gatherings and some ISOC chapters and
some local At Large structures are prototyping. The fact that management
bodies like the RIRs, IETF attendees, and others will send people along
to talk shows that the potential but the funding is almost non existent
to sustain meaningful longer term activities.
In summary ICANN and the other bodies can claim to be "multi
stakeholder" but they cannot claim to represent all stakeholders. For
that reason I think there is still some institution building to be done.
Christian
Christian
Vint Cerf wrote:
> Dear Carlos - this gives us a target to work on. thanks
>
> vint
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 8:58 PM, "Carlos Raúl G."
> <carlosraulg at gmail.com <mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Vint,
>
> As part of my experience in ATRT2, there is quite good
> accountability and transparency on the policy development process
> (if you help GAC along), there could be a little more on the
> compliance side (ccTLDs in particular), but there is little or no
> recourse beyond the level of the same Board that approves the policy.
>
> I share the idea that no new entities are needed, just some
> clearer separation between a) policy, b) compliance and c)
> operations for the benefit of clarity for a wider public.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> +506 8335 2487 <tel:%2B506%208335%202487>
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>
> El 27/03/2014, a las 18:31, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com
> <mailto:vint at google.com>> escribió:
>
>> i think it is quite conceivable that no new institution is needed
>> - what is required is a process by which ICANN delivers on
>> transparency and accountability processes (note plural). When
>> issues arise, there should be recourse mechanisms and options in
>> place. We have some, now, but I think they could use some
>> refinement and strengthening.
>>
>> vint
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM, "Carlos Raúl G."
>> <carlosraulg at gmail.com <mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Then it's only about a separate/different oversight, I would
>> guess?
>>
>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> +506 8335 2487 <tel:%2B506%208335%202487>
>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>>
>> El 27/03/2014, a las 18:26, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com
>> <mailto:vint at google.com>> escribió:
>>
>>> there is already separation within ICANN. IANA is isolated
>>> from policymaking practices.
>>>
>>> vint
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:14 PM, ICT Barrett
>>> <ictbarrett at gmail.com <mailto:ictbarrett at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> I think there should be a separation as IANA performs
>>> their function well and the stability of the internet
>>> from an infrastructure point of view shouldn't get
>>> affected by the policy making process ( taking note that
>>> once policy is decided it would impact on operations ).
>>> But I don't this we should mess with IANAs technical
>>> operational processes now.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Kerry-Ann
>>>
>>> > On Mar 28, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Tamer Rizk
>>> <trizk at inficron.com <mailto:trizk at inficron.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > All these suggestions are great, but I think we need
>>> greater organization of and visibility into community
>>> consensus on the diverse opinions voiced here. After
>>> all, we are an Internet savvy community, and what better
>>> way to effectively discuss the governance of the
>>> Internet than by automating consensus using the Internet?
>>> >
>>> > Is there any capacity to automatically export the
>>> conversations within these lists using something like:
>>> >
>>> > https://github.com/fdietz/jwz_threading
>>> > and/or
>>> > http://www.mailpiler.org
>>> >
>>> > to an online comment voting system similar to Reddit,
>>> such that consensus floats to the top? Given the open
>>> source tools available, doing so should take a
>>> programmer a focused week and would be extremely
>>> beneficial to facilitating the conversation on transition.
>>> >
>>> > This is, by definition, enabling the process by which
>>> to create the process.
>>> >
>>> > Tamer
>>> >
>>> > John More wrote:
>>> >> I would suggest that in general, it is better to have
>>> a separation of roles since the technical an clerical
>>> sector made need to have oversight and from the
>>> policy-making sector.
>>> >>
>>> >> John More
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Mar 27, 2014, at 7:37 AM, Richard Hill
>>> <rhill at hill-a.ch <mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Carlos refers to a possible spin-off of the IANA
>>> function. Indeed, some
>>> >>> take the view that there should be structural
>>> separation of the policy
>>> >>> making role currently performed by ICANN, and the
>>> technical and clerical
>>> >>> operational role performed by IANA, see for example:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/18/structural-separation-a-key-p
>>> >>> rinciple-of-iana-globalization/
>>> >>>
>>> >>> How do people on this list feel about that? Should
>>> there be structural
>>> >>> separation, or not?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best,
>>> >>> Richard
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >>> From: internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org
>>> <mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org>
>>> >>> [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org
>>> <mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org>]On
>>> Behalf Of Carlos Raúl
>>> >>> Gutiérrez
>>> >>> Sent: mercredi, 26. mars 2014 23:00
>>> >>> To: CW Mail
>>> >>> Cc: ISOC Chapter Delegates;
>>> internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org
>>> <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>;
>>> >>> ianaxfer at elists.isoc.org
>>> <mailto:ianaxfer at elists.isoc.org>
>>> >>> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] [Chapter-delegates]
>>> An initial
>>> >>> proposalregarding IANA development
>>> >>> Importance: High
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Z
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Christopher,
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I really like the general message and the integrated
>>> approach you are
>>> >>> looking for. The problem right now is not only the
>>> number of ongoing lists,
>>> >>> meetings, etc., but I liked it very much so here my
>>> first very positive
>>> >>> reaction and comments to your valuable ideas:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> From my limited experience of almost 3 years in GAC
>>> and one grueling year in
>>> >>> ICANNs ATRT2, I certainly think that we cannot go on
>>> thinking in terms of
>>> >>> marginal improvements and changes. But we have to
>>> start somewhere and the
>>> >>> IANA is as good as any starting point to start and I
>>> strongly hope it does
>>> >>> not get slowed down by other imperfections in the
>>> Ecosystem.
>>> >>> Independently of the IANA horizon, it makes a lot of
>>> sense to to give more
>>> >>> responsibility to RIRs and registries, if they only
>>> had some common
>>> >>> accountability and transparency standards. They
>>> don´t need to be the same
>>> >>> standards< as ICANN´s, but they should be high,
>>> common to all of them, and
>>> >>> widely discussed and agreed to by the community (as
>>> opposed to be imposed in
>>> >>> AoC type of agreements). Today they really miss the
>>> mark, which is worrisome
>>> >>> since they are clearly and more or less closely
>>> linked to the for profit
>>> >>> segment. Our apter has made a submission to Net
>>> Mundial in this direction
>>> >>> ICANN certainly is a process based entity, that
>>> could be analyzed and
>>> >>> organized differently as the business has grown so
>>> much. The fist step was
>>> >>> to create a subsidiary for the gTLD program. The
>>> second is the probable
>>> >>> spin-off of the IANA function. From whats left, the
>>> bottom-up policy
>>> >>> development process could be more clearly separated
>>> from implementation, as
>>> >>> far as the compliancy of Registries and registrars
>>> go. But again we have
>>> >>> different standards for gTLDs as compared to ccTLDs,
>>> to give just another
>>> >>> example- But such an exercise require carefully
>>> moderated workshops at
>>> >>> least, no just brainstorming in mailing lists. And
>>> yes, it should go hand in
>>> >>> hand with the globalization of the IANA function but
>>> under its own charter.
>>> >>> I also think it sounds like an excellent role for
>>> ISOC, if it wasn´t so busy
>>> >>> with other issues than the purely technical ones
>>> (IETF, IAB) like the IGF
>>> >>> getting more teeth in recommendations, and having an
>>> arms length relation
>>> >>> with an, albeit non-profit, still an important
>>> Registry hoping to play also
>>> >>> a novel role in the gTLD space (which I fully
>>> support by the way).
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The whole I* has to do and deliver a lot of
>>> thinking. Montevideo was a great
>>> >>> first step. In my eyes more important a milestone
>>> than the now hotter IANA
>>> >>> issue. But it also has to jointly define a
>>> (MONTEVIDEO LIKE) space for this
>>> >>> high level rethinking and avoid starting a
>>> competition to the already
>>> >>> crowded ongoing high level panel and meetings
>>> competition. Moreover, ISOC
>>> >>> should guarantee a WIDER participation of the
>>> non/technical, non/commercial
>>> >>> and no/governmental community in such a STRUCTURED
>>> space over time. And I’m
>>> >>> sure many new good ideas would come out of this efforts.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best regards
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> email: crg at isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>
>>> >>> Skype: carlos.raulg
>>> >>> +506 8335 2487 <tel:%2B506%208335%202487> (cel)
>>> >>> +506 4000 2000 <tel:%2B506%204000%202000> (home)
>>> >>> +506 2290 3678 <tel:%2B506%202290%203678> (fax)
>>> >>> _____________________
>>> >>> Apartado 1571-1000
>>> >>> San Jose, COSTA RICA
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> El 26/03/2014, a las 12:29, CW Mail
>>> <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu
>>> <mailto:mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>> escribió:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Good afternoon:
>>> >>> Further to Kathy Brown's messages of 22 and 23
>>> March, I would like to make a
>>> >>> few comments and suggestions as to how the IANA
>>> 'globalisation' might
>>> >>> proceed, and what could be the role of the Internet
>>> Soceity. These are born
>>> >>> of a certain experience in several capacities in
>>> relation to Internet
>>> >>> Governance and ICANN since the 1990's and from more
>>> recent observations.
>>> >>> The NTIA announcement and the ISOC staff 'initial
>>> proposal' do imply that
>>> >>> the globalisation of IANA should take place within
>>> the multistakeholder
>>> >>> context of ICANN. That would indeed appear to be the
>>> only viable direction
>>> >>> to go, but it comes with several constraints and
>>> conditions. It is also a
>>> >>> 'case to be made': that option is by no means
>>> universally held.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ICANN itself needs a thorough reformation,
>>> particularly with regard to the
>>> >>> balance of power within the 'bottom-up'
>>> multistakeholder policy development
>>> >>> process. If the logical unity of the ICANN and IANA
>>> roles is to be
>>> >>> maintained, then ICANN itself has to be credible as
>>> the global custodian of
>>> >>> the Internet Naming and Addressing system and
>>> related policies.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> At present that is quite a stretch, not least
>>> because of the unsatisfactory
>>> >>> nature of the decisions leading up to the on-going
>>> new gTLD process and the
>>> >>> resulting controversies.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Consequently, the reform of ICANN and the IANA
>>> transfer will have to take
>>> >>> place hand-in-hand. Not least because – other than
>>> among the commercially
>>> >>> financed operators – there are too few resources and
>>> not enough voluntary
>>> >>> time to conduct two or more parallel reform
>>> processes. Furthermore, it must
>>> >>> be clear from the start that the IANA transfer
>>> relates to the whole of the
>>> >>> IANA-related functions, including the root zone
>>> management functions.
>>> >>> Otherwise from an international point of view, the
>>> game is not worth the
>>> >>> candle.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Counter proposals already emanating from the IGP and
>>> InternetNZ envisage
>>> >>> creating additional 'entities' in the name of
>>> 'structural separation' of
>>> >>> ICANN and IANA. They also rather down-play the
>>> oversight role of the GAC.
>>> >>> That would be quite unrealistic.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Furthermore, the IGP proposal would envisage the
>>> IANA function controlled by
>>> >>> a new entity “DNSA” which would be dominated by the
>>> Registries and
>>> >>> Registrars. This idea has a precedent. In 2009, the
>>> Technology Policy
>>> >>> Institute was already arguing that ICANN itself
>>> should be controlled by the
>>> >>> contracting parties, i.e. The Registries and
>>> Registrars. That would
>>> >>> evidently deny the multistakeholder structure which
>>> must remain open to all
>>> >>> stakeholders, including users' interests.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> However, recent experience with the new gTLD
>>> programme strongly suggests
>>> >>> that the influence of the Registries and Registrars
>>> within ICANN is already
>>> >>> too great and that other stakeholders, including
>>> governments, have not been
>>> >>> able to exercise effective counter-vailing power.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The idea of confiding IANA to a separate entity
>>> without effective oversight
>>> >>> and controlled by commercially interested parties,
>>> is unlikely to enjoy
>>> >>> consensus.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> In conclusion, recognising that these reforms will
>>> continue over an extended
>>> >>> period, it is essential that the Internet Society
>>> itself ensures that it
>>> >>> does support a fully multistakeholder process both
>>> internally and
>>> >>> externally. ISOC could contribute effectively to
>>> rebalancing representation
>>> >>> of user interests and civil society, on a permanent
>>> basis, particularly
>>> >>> through Chapters' membership, in several relevant
>>> fora, including the IGF,
>>> >>> MAG, ICANN and NETmundial.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Regards
>>> >>> Christopher Wilkinson
>>> >>> On 22 Mar 2014, at 11:39, Kathy Brown
>>> <brown at isoc.org <mailto:brown at isoc.org>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 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
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>> >>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>> >>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>>> >>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My
>>> Account menu.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>> >>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>> >>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>>> >>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My
>>> Account menu.
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> IANAxfer mailing list
>>> >> IANAxfer at elists.isoc.org
>>> <mailto:IANAxfer at elists.isoc.org>
>>> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>> > please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>> > https://portal.isoc.org/
>>> > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My
>>> Account menu.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My
>>> Account menu.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
> https://portal.isoc.org/
> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list