Hello Kavouss,
1. Do you think that public interest of Community “A” is identical to those of country “B” or “C” or…?
No. I think each country is likely to have its own definitions of the public interest that are often constructed as national laws. I also think that there will be common public interests amongst countries - that are often developed into international treaties. For example international conventions that relate to the laws of the sea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Se... .
2. Do you also think that the Public Interest of Country “ D” is identical to that of Countries “E “or “ F*,…?
No.
3. Do you think that the Public Interests of those referred to in 1) and 2) above are stable within a period of time or it would change according to circumstances? ,….
They will evolve over time just as laws evolve over time. Some rules are more stable than others - for example the constitution of a country may change very rarely, whereas taxation laws may change frequently.
4. Do you think that there is a way to have such a summation of all these different elements / categories to achieve what is called “GPI?
I think with respect to ICANN's mission - I think that it is possible to agree to a set of global public interests. For example, that there is a unique, global root file for top level domain names, or that there is a global unique set of Internet Protocol addresses that is sufficient for all resources connected to the Internet.
5. Do you also think that at the time of implementation, even if, and only if, we could have such a summation in an appropriate manner, there would a need to have a criterion/ criteria to determine whether or not such interests were met / observed?
I think much of what could be defined as the global public interest is already spread across the Articles of Incorporation, our current Bylaws, and the proposed changes in the CCWG report. For example in the Articles of Incorporation it states that there is a global public interest served by "coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet".
6. Do you think that the human judgement/ interpretation at the time of implementation may be different?
Yes - I think human interpretation of a set of rules can change over time. In our case the humans involved can include members of working groups, the staff, the Board, and the panellists sitting on an IRP panel. I think we need to provide enough detail in our rules and procedures so that they can be followed by a new set of people. Right now I suspect that we rely on a fair bit of knowledge and experience from people that were around at the time the Internet Protocols were first developed in the late 60's and early 70's. In 20 years time - many of these people will be gone.
There are many other questions of social, psychological, legal aspects of such definition and its scope of application.
Agreed. I am only an engineer so most of these topics are well outside of my area of expertise. I am thus honoured that you should ask my opinion on the global public interest. I am still confident though that a set of principles can be developed to help further define the global public interest as it relates to ICANN's mission. These principles can help guide those that join our community in the future. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-----Original Message-----
1. Do you think that public interest of Community “A” is identical to those of country “B” or “C” or…?
No.
2. Do you also think that the Public Interest of Country “ D” is identical to that of Countries “E “or “ F*,…?
No.
The Internet and particularly the DNS is a global infrastructure. In this context, there is a global Internet-using public and DNS governance should reflect and respond to this globalized community, not a collection of national communities with their own distinct and possibly incompatible notion of what is in the public interest. If we wanted to have DNS governance reflect national conceptions of public interest we would have never set up ICANN, we would have worked through intergovernmental organizations.
On 02 Jan 2016, at 08:47, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
The Internet and particularly the DNS is a global infrastructure. In this context, there is a global Internet-using public and DNS governance should reflect and respond to this globalized community, not a collection of national communities with their own distinct and possibly incompatible notion of what is in the public interest. If we wanted to have DNS governance reflect national conceptions of public interest we would have never set up ICANN, we would have worked through intergovernmental organisations.
Milton, you take your globalisation argument too far. I can think of several aspects of the public interest, normally implemented through Applicable Laws, which ICANN and its contracted parties should respect. CW PS: We foresaw that when ICANN was being set up.
Such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights, perhaps?
I can think of several aspects of the public interest, normally implemented through Applicable Laws, which ICANN and its contracted parties should respect.
CW
PS:We foresaw that when ICANN was being set up.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All, The more we read and investigate ,the more we find almost impossible to have an agreed definition of GPI from various aspects . There is only one refernce in Article 3 of Article of Incorporation to what GPI could cove and those are outlined in sub-section i through iv of that Article. Those sub-section could form some sort of GPI SESCRIPTION and /or scope of application and NOTGPI definition . Those sub-sections are narrow refernce to specific area of GPI in ICANN activities. In the light of the foregoing, rejection of any Recommendation or part of the Recommendation contained in CCWG 3rd Proposal SHALL BE CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY ASSOCIATED with any of those sub-section with valid argument and legal analysis. Consequently by simple statement that " such REC. OR PART OF THE rec. is inconsistent with GPI is not convincing at all. Regards Kavouss 2016-01-02 12:10 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:
Such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights, perhaps?
I can think of several aspects of the public interest, normally
implemented through Applicable Laws, which ICANN and its contracted parties should respect.
CW
PS:We foresaw that when ICANN was being set up.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Did we ask the Board what they consider GOI? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 2 Jan 2016, at 13:35, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, The more we read and investigate ,the more we find almost impossible to have an agreed definition of GPI from various aspects . There is only one refernce in Article 3 of Article of Incorporation to what GPI could cove and those are outlined in sub-section i through iv of that Article. Those sub-section could form some sort of GPI SESCRIPTION and /or scope of application and NOTGPI definition . Those sub-sections are narrow refernce to specific area of GPI in ICANN activities. In the light of the foregoing, rejection of any Recommendation or part of the Recommendation contained in CCWG 3rd Proposal SHALL BE CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY ASSOCIATED with any of those sub-section with valid argument and legal analysis. Consequently by simple statement that " such REC. OR PART OF THE rec. is inconsistent with GPI is not convincing at all. Regards Kavouss
2016-01-02 12:10 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:
Such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights, perhaps?
I can think of several aspects of the public interest, normally implemented through Applicable Laws, which ICANN and its contracted parties should respect.
CW
PS:We foresaw that when ICANN was being set up.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
s/GOI/GPI/ el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6s On 2 Jan 2016, 13:58 +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse<el@lisse.na>, wrote:
Did we ask the Board what they consider GOI?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 2 Jan 2016, at 13:35, Kavouss Arasteh<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com(mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com)>wrote:
Dear All, The more we read and investigate,the more we find almost impossible to have an agreed definition of GPI from various aspects . There is only one refernce in Article 3 of Article ofIncorporationto what GPI could cove and those are outlined in sub-section i through iv of that Article. Those sub-section could form some sort of GPI SESCRIPTION and /or scope of application and NOTGPI definition . Those sub-sections are narrow refernce to specificarea of GPI in ICANN activities. In the light of the foregoing, rejection of any Recommendation or part of the Recommendation contained in CCWG 3rd Proposal SHALL BE CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY ASSOCIATED with any of those sub-section with valid argument and legal analysis. Consequently by simple statement that " such REC. OR PART OF THE rec. is inconsistent with GPI is not convincing at all. Regards Kavouss
2016-01-02 12:10 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts<nigel@channelisles.net(mailto:nigel@channelisles.net)>:
Such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights, perhaps?
I can think of several aspects of the public interest, normally implemented through Applicable Laws, which ICANN and its contracted parties should respect.
CW
PS:We foresaw that when ICANN was being set up.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org(mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org) https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org(mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org) https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org(mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org) https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 07:47:31AM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
The Internet and particularly the DNS is a global infrastructure. In this context, there is a global Internet-using public and DNS governance should reflect and respond to this globalized community, not a collection of national communities with their own distinct and possibly incompatible notion of what is in the public interest.
I don't think that Milton and I really disagree about this, but I'd like to draw out a point. This point is why I believe it to be important that ICANN's role be clearly limited. The limitation is based on the fundamental design of the Internet. Those who do not accept this sort of limitation are, in effect, arguing for something other than the Internet. I apologise that this is long, but I thought it more important to be explicit. Both the Internet and the DNS are at once global and local. The nature of internetworking means that the global Internet is built only of other (inter)networks. Similarly, we usually think of the DNS as a tree structure and we often emphasise the common root as a result. But we can think if it another way: the DNS is made up of a collection of zones operated mostly independently from one another. The Internet is a radically distributed system: almost all of the technical operation is undertaken without any direct co-ordination with anyone, performed by an enormous number of independent operators. This means that interoperation is fundamentally a voluntary thing. In your network, you make your rules, and there is no stick (outside of national law) to make you interoperate with others. Instead, there is only the carrot: if you interoperate, you get the benefits of that interoperation. This is the near-magic that is the functioning of the Internet today. It turns out that the magic is made a little easier if we have a minimal amount of central co-ordination. In principle, you could do this some other way, but this is how we do it now. IANA's job is the minimal co-ordination. So, to allow packets to go from one network to another, it's necessary to be able to tell one another what network you're operating (that's how routing works -- BGP announcements do this). And in order that, when you say, "I'm running this network," everyone else needs to know what "this network" means. The way we do that is a common number space, and to have a common number space it is convenient to have a registry of the source of commonality, and IANA does it. Similarly, to make it easy for the various networks to connect to one another in a reliable way, they can use common protocols set up in a particular way. To know how to set up the protocols, it's convenient to have a single place to look up the settings. Keeping the list of those settings -- the protocol parameters -- is another IANA job. Finally, names that are assigned locally won't be any use to those on other networks unless the other network users know how to get to those names. To know how to do that, it is convenient to have a place to start looking. Mathematically, a way to do that (and one that is not too hard to implement in computers) is a tree structure, which by definition starts from a common root. That common root is IANA's job. This job turns out to be special, too, because while the other two registry types have a well-defined policy source, the policy source for the root zone turns out to be ICANN as well. This fact is (I guess we all know) how we got into the current controversy. But notice that the DNS itself is a matter of convenience. We _could_ have other naming systems on the Internet. There are peer-to-peer systems that have already been invented and are in fact deployed. There are alternatives that have been proposed but turn out for practical purposes to depend on the DNS anyway (e.g. the "handles" system from DONA), but that need not. And so on. Now, because of the nature of the Internet, which relies on all those interconnected networks voluntarily interoperating, the convenience of centralization is a trade-off. You trade a central point of control (IANA) for the advantages of simplicity in protocol design, implementation, and operation. But if the central control is too great -- if, for instance, it starts trying to impose controls down through the DNS tree, or it starts trying to demand strict interconnection regimes along geopolitical lines, or whatever -- then all the independent networks that are now gaining the benefit of easy interoperation will get less "carrot" than they do today. The Internet scales the way it does because the overwhelming majority of interconnections from large ISPs are done with a handshake: I want your packets and you want mine, and we peer. If the world decides to make that hard, it changes the business models of all the ISPs. Similarly, the domain name system is a terrible user experience, really, and that's the reason we have so many hacks on it. But part of the reason it scales so well is because the co-ordination ends at a delegation point: the root zone delegates com to Verisign, and after that has basically nothing to say about what happens inside com. Similarly, Verisign delegates anvilwalrusden.com to me, and they don't have anything to say about what I do in my zone. If we start to chip away at that distributed operation by attempting to use ICANN's policy conrtrol over the root zone to impose regulations down the tree, we are attacking the model that has made the Internet work at all. Moreover, we risk driving people away from the domain name system into some other technology -- a change that will certainly not happen overnight, and which will lead to balkanization and damage to the system's usability. So, I don't think "the global public interest", whatever that means, does anything to help us to understand what ICANN should do. ICANN should pay attention to its well-understood and needed functions. It should not go adventuring out into global governance issues that distract from that narrow set of responsibilities. And it should not embrace language that distracts from the narrow responsibilities -- lest such language become an attractive nuisance that encourages people to think ICANN has power it never has had and (given the design of the Internet) can't get. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
+1 J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 1/2/16, 4:19 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 07:47:31AM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
The Internet and particularly the DNS is a global infrastructure. In this context, there is a global Internet-using public and DNS governance should reflect and respond to this globalized community, not a collection of national communities with their own distinct and possibly incompatible notion of what is in the public interest.
I don't think that Milton and I really disagree about this, but I'd like to draw out a point. This point is why I believe it to be important that ICANN's role be clearly limited. The limitation is based on the fundamental design of the Internet. Those who do not accept this sort of limitation are, in effect, arguing for something other than the Internet. I apologise that this is long, but I thought it more important to be explicit.
Both the Internet and the DNS are at once global and local. The nature of internetworking means that the global Internet is built only of other (inter)networks. Similarly, we usually think of the DNS as a tree structure and we often emphasise the common root as a result. But we can think if it another way: the DNS is made up of a collection of zones operated mostly independently from one another. The Internet is a radically distributed system: almost all of the technical operation is undertaken without any direct co-ordination with anyone, performed by an enormous number of independent operators. This means that interoperation is fundamentally a voluntary thing. In your network, you make your rules, and there is no stick (outside of national law) to make you interoperate with others. Instead, there is only the carrot: if you interoperate, you get the benefits of that interoperation. This is the near-magic that is the functioning of the Internet today.
It turns out that the magic is made a little easier if we have a minimal amount of central co-ordination. In principle, you could do this some other way, but this is how we do it now. IANA's job is the minimal co-ordination.
So, to allow packets to go from one network to another, it's necessary to be able to tell one another what network you're operating (that's how routing works -- BGP announcements do this). And in order that, when you say, "I'm running this network," everyone else needs to know what "this network" means. The way we do that is a common number space, and to have a common number space it is convenient to have a registry of the source of commonality, and IANA does it.
Similarly, to make it easy for the various networks to connect to one another in a reliable way, they can use common protocols set up in a particular way. To know how to set up the protocols, it's convenient to have a single place to look up the settings. Keeping the list of those settings -- the protocol parameters -- is another IANA job.
Finally, names that are assigned locally won't be any use to those on other networks unless the other network users know how to get to those names. To know how to do that, it is convenient to have a place to start looking. Mathematically, a way to do that (and one that is not too hard to implement in computers) is a tree structure, which by definition starts from a common root. That common root is IANA's job. This job turns out to be special, too, because while the other two registry types have a well-defined policy source, the policy source for the root zone turns out to be ICANN as well. This fact is (I guess we all know) how we got into the current controversy.
But notice that the DNS itself is a matter of convenience. We _could_ have other naming systems on the Internet. There are peer-to-peer systems that have already been invented and are in fact deployed. There are alternatives that have been proposed but turn out for practical purposes to depend on the DNS anyway (e.g. the "handles" system from DONA), but that need not. And so on.
Now, because of the nature of the Internet, which relies on all those interconnected networks voluntarily interoperating, the convenience of centralization is a trade-off. You trade a central point of control (IANA) for the advantages of simplicity in protocol design, implementation, and operation. But if the central control is too great -- if, for instance, it starts trying to impose controls down through the DNS tree, or it starts trying to demand strict interconnection regimes along geopolitical lines, or whatever -- then all the independent networks that are now gaining the benefit of easy interoperation will get less "carrot" than they do today.
The Internet scales the way it does because the overwhelming majority of interconnections from large ISPs are done with a handshake: I want your packets and you want mine, and we peer. If the world decides to make that hard, it changes the business models of all the ISPs. Similarly, the domain name system is a terrible user experience, really, and that's the reason we have so many hacks on it. But part of the reason it scales so well is because the co-ordination ends at a delegation point: the root zone delegates com to Verisign, and after that has basically nothing to say about what happens inside com. Similarly, Verisign delegates anvilwalrusden.com to me, and they don't have anything to say about what I do in my zone.
If we start to chip away at that distributed operation by attempting to use ICANN's policy conrtrol over the root zone to impose regulations down the tree, we are attacking the model that has made the Internet work at all. Moreover, we risk driving people away from the domain name system into some other technology -- a change that will certainly not happen overnight, and which will lead to balkanization and damage to the system's usability.
So, I don't think "the global public interest", whatever that means, does anything to help us to understand what ICANN should do. ICANN should pay attention to its well-understood and needed functions. It should not go adventuring out into global governance issues that distract from that narrow set of responsibilities. And it should not embrace language that distracts from the narrow responsibilities -- lest such language become an attractive nuisance that encourages people to think ICANN has power it never has had and (given the design of the Internet) can't get.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=us-hJPgrNf-iMyIM4VdxmC obeTenq3HyeF1ytT0oqpU&s=_BpnBKHVCJz2YEpyZ0WJdw8R55BzWiup6sfVp920lt4&e=
Agreed. Very well-articulated by Andrew. Much appreciated. Regards, Keith -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 10:14 AM To: Andrew Sullivan; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Internet's design and ICANN responsibility (was Re: GPI) +1 J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 1/2/16, 4:19 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 07:47:31AM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
The Internet and particularly the DNS is a global infrastructure. In this context, there is a global Internet-using public and DNS governance should reflect and respond to this globalized community, not a collection of national communities with their own distinct and possibly incompatible notion of what is in the public interest.
I don't think that Milton and I really disagree about this, but I'd like to draw out a point. This point is why I believe it to be important that ICANN's role be clearly limited. The limitation is based on the fundamental design of the Internet. Those who do not accept this sort of limitation are, in effect, arguing for something other than the Internet. I apologise that this is long, but I thought it more important to be explicit.
Both the Internet and the DNS are at once global and local. The nature of internetworking means that the global Internet is built only of other (inter)networks. Similarly, we usually think of the DNS as a tree structure and we often emphasise the common root as a result. But we can think if it another way: the DNS is made up of a collection of zones operated mostly independently from one another. The Internet is a radically distributed system: almost all of the technical operation is undertaken without any direct co-ordination with anyone, performed by an enormous number of independent operators. This means that interoperation is fundamentally a voluntary thing. In your network, you make your rules, and there is no stick (outside of national law) to make you interoperate with others. Instead, there is only the carrot: if you interoperate, you get the benefits of that interoperation. This is the near-magic that is the functioning of the Internet today.
It turns out that the magic is made a little easier if we have a minimal amount of central co-ordination. In principle, you could do this some other way, but this is how we do it now. IANA's job is the minimal co-ordination.
So, to allow packets to go from one network to another, it's necessary to be able to tell one another what network you're operating (that's how routing works -- BGP announcements do this). And in order that, when you say, "I'm running this network," everyone else needs to know what "this network" means. The way we do that is a common number space, and to have a common number space it is convenient to have a registry of the source of commonality, and IANA does it.
Similarly, to make it easy for the various networks to connect to one another in a reliable way, they can use common protocols set up in a particular way. To know how to set up the protocols, it's convenient to have a single place to look up the settings. Keeping the list of those settings -- the protocol parameters -- is another IANA job.
Finally, names that are assigned locally won't be any use to those on other networks unless the other network users know how to get to those names. To know how to do that, it is convenient to have a place to start looking. Mathematically, a way to do that (and one that is not too hard to implement in computers) is a tree structure, which by definition starts from a common root. That common root is IANA's job. This job turns out to be special, too, because while the other two registry types have a well-defined policy source, the policy source for the root zone turns out to be ICANN as well. This fact is (I guess we all know) how we got into the current controversy.
But notice that the DNS itself is a matter of convenience. We _could_ have other naming systems on the Internet. There are peer-to-peer systems that have already been invented and are in fact deployed. There are alternatives that have been proposed but turn out for practical purposes to depend on the DNS anyway (e.g. the "handles" system from DONA), but that need not. And so on.
Now, because of the nature of the Internet, which relies on all those interconnected networks voluntarily interoperating, the convenience of centralization is a trade-off. You trade a central point of control (IANA) for the advantages of simplicity in protocol design, implementation, and operation. But if the central control is too great -- if, for instance, it starts trying to impose controls down through the DNS tree, or it starts trying to demand strict interconnection regimes along geopolitical lines, or whatever -- then all the independent networks that are now gaining the benefit of easy interoperation will get less "carrot" than they do today.
The Internet scales the way it does because the overwhelming majority of interconnections from large ISPs are done with a handshake: I want your packets and you want mine, and we peer. If the world decides to make that hard, it changes the business models of all the ISPs. Similarly, the domain name system is a terrible user experience, really, and that's the reason we have so many hacks on it. But part of the reason it scales so well is because the co-ordination ends at a delegation point: the root zone delegates com to Verisign, and after that has basically nothing to say about what happens inside com. Similarly, Verisign delegates anvilwalrusden.com to me, and they don't have anything to say about what I do in my zone.
If we start to chip away at that distributed operation by attempting to use ICANN's policy conrtrol over the root zone to impose regulations down the tree, we are attacking the model that has made the Internet work at all. Moreover, we risk driving people away from the domain name system into some other technology -- a change that will certainly not happen overnight, and which will lead to balkanization and damage to the system's usability.
So, I don't think "the global public interest", whatever that means, does anything to help us to understand what ICANN should do. ICANN should pay attention to its well-understood and needed functions. It should not go adventuring out into global governance issues that distract from that narrow set of responsibilities. And it should not embrace language that distracts from the narrow responsibilities -- lest such language become an attractive nuisance that encourages people to think ICANN has power it never has had and (given the design of the Internet) can't get.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=us-hJPgrNf-iMyIM4VdxmC obeTenq3HyeF1ytT0oqpU&s=_BpnBKHVCJz2YEpyZ0WJdw8R55BzWiup6sfVp920lt4&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
At 04:19 PM 1/2/2016, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
SNIP So, I don't think "the global public interest", whatever that means, does anything to help us to understand what ICANN should do. ICANN should pay attention to its well-understood and needed functions. It should not go adventuring out into global governance issues that distract from that narrow set of responsibilities. And it should not embrace language that distracts from the narrow responsibilities -- lest such language become an attractive nuisance that encourages people to think ICANN has power it never has had and (given the design of the Internet) can't get.
+1 Very well put. David ******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************
At last, something everyone can agree on. The question then is HOW? How do we set up an accountability system that confines ICANN to this function. Our chosen method (which I continue to support) is to a) narrowly define the mission in writing; and b) allow people outside the corporation to invoke a neutral arbitral mechanism (the IRP) to call the corporation to account when/if it goes beyond the mission assigned. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: David Post [mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 9:52 AM To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Internet's design and ICANN responsibility (was Re: GPI) At 04:19 PM 1/2/2016, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
SNIP So, I don't think "the global public interest", whatever that means, does anything to help us to understand what ICANN should do. ICANN should pay attention to its well-understood and needed functions. It should not go adventuring out into global governance issues that distract from that narrow set of responsibilities. And it should not embrace language that distracts from the narrow responsibilities -- lest such language become an attractive nuisance that encourages people to think ICANN has power it never has had and (given the design of the Internet) can't get.
+1 Very well put. David ******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com ******************************* _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
At 12:03 PM 1/5/2016, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
At last, something everyone can agree on. The question then is HOW? How do we set up an accountability system that confines ICANN to this function. Our chosen method (which I continue to support) is to a) narrowly define the mission in writing; and b) allow people outside the corporation to invoke a neutral arbitral mechanism (the IRP) to call the corporation to account when/if it goes beyond the mission assigned.
I guess I'd ask the question this way: Even assuming that we agree with the method we've chosen (i.e., to narrowly define the mission, and to allow people outside the corporation to invoke a neutral arbitral mechanism (the IRP) to call the corporation to account), do we think that the recommendations as currently formulated implement that approach in a way that is likely to be effective? And if not, why not? Personally, I have some concerns about that. First, I worry that the mission has become watered-down and so tangled up with qualifying language that it will not serve as an effective brake on ICANN's actions, and that the central role of "consensus" in ICANN's decision-making has been diminished to the point where it too won't be an enforceable constraint; and second, I am not yet convinced that the neutral arbitral mechanism, the important details of which have yet to be fleshed out, will, much like the current IRP, be unwilling/unable to enforce meaningful constraints on ICANN's actions. David
-----Original Message----- From: David Post [mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 9:52 AM To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Internet's design and ICANN responsibility (was Re: GPI)
At 04:19 PM 1/2/2016, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
SNIP So, I don't think "the global public interest", whatever that means, does anything to help us to understand what ICANN should do. ICANN should pay attention to its well-understood and needed functions. It should not go adventuring out into global governance issues that distract from that narrow set of responsibilities. And it should not embrace language that distracts from the narrow responsibilities -- lest such language become an attractive nuisance that encourages people to think ICANN has power it never has had and (given the design of the Internet) can't get.
+1
Very well put. David
******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************
I personally agree also. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Post Sent: Wednesday, 6 January 2016 1:52 AM To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Internet's design and ICANN responsibility (was Re: GPI) At 04:19 PM 1/2/2016, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
SNIP So, I don't think "the global public interest", whatever that means, does anything to help us to understand what ICANN should do. ICANN should pay attention to its well-understood and needed functions. It should not go adventuring out into global governance issues that distract from that narrow set of responsibilities. And it should not embrace language that distracts from the narrow responsibilities -- lest such language become an attractive nuisance that encourages people to think ICANN has power it never has had and (given the design of the Internet) can't get.
+1 Very well put. David ******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com ******************************* _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+ 1. Just to repeat from the last call - This is very much inline with the stance the numbers community have been taking towards ICANN; we desire an ICANN which simply performs its functions and the narrow responsibilities, based on its well-understood and needed functions. (In the numbers case, as specified in the ASO MOU & the new IANA number registry services SLA) Izumi On 2016/01/06 5:34, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
I personally agree also.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Post Sent: Wednesday, 6 January 2016 1:52 AM To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Internet's design and ICANN responsibility (was Re: GPI)
At 04:19 PM 1/2/2016, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
SNIP So, I don't think "the global public interest", whatever that means, does anything to help us to understand what ICANN should do. ICANN should pay attention to its well-understood and needed functions. It should not go adventuring out into global governance issues that distract from that narrow set of responsibilities. And it should not embrace language that distracts from the narrow responsibilities -- lest such language become an attractive nuisance that encourages people to think ICANN has power it never has had and (given the design of the Internet) can't get.
+1
Very well put. David
******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
In agreement as well. Best Regards<div id="DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6; margin-top: 10px;"> <tr> <td style="width: 105px; padding-top: 15px;"> <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig..." target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png" style="width: 90px; height:33px;"/></a> </td> <td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. <br /><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig..." target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td> </tr> </table><a href="#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"></a></div> On 1/6/16, Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp> wrote:
+ 1. Just to repeat from the last call -
This is very much inline with the stance the numbers community have been taking towards ICANN; we desire an ICANN which simply performs its functions and the narrow responsibilities, based on its well-understood and needed functions. (In the numbers case, as specified in the ASO MOU & the new IANA number registry services SLA)
Izumi
On 2016/01/06 5:34, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
I personally agree also.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Post Sent: Wednesday, 6 January 2016 1:52 AM To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Internet's design and ICANN responsibility (was Re: GPI)
At 04:19 PM 1/2/2016, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
SNIP So, I don't think "the global public interest", whatever that means, does anything to help us to understand what ICANN should do. ICANN should pay attention to its well-understood and needed functions. It should not go adventuring out into global governance issues that distract from that narrow set of responsibilities. And it should not embrace language that distracts from the narrow responsibilities -- lest such language become an attractive nuisance that encourages people to think ICANN has power it never has had and (given the design of the Internet) can't get.
+1
Very well put. David
******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
participants (14)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Barrack Otieno -
Bruce Tonkin -
Burr, Becky -
CW Mail -
David Post -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Drazek, Keith -
Izumi Okutani -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig