Fwd: [APAC-Discuss] Internet Governance Webinar Conversation Opportunity With ICANN Senior Executives
Dear All, These are my questions for Fadi, Theresa et al. 1)The meeting that ICANN had with Brazil was designed to discuss the Summit in Rio, in the CEO's mind when he was talking about the Internationalisation of ICANN did he mean: a) change of oversight from the US, via IANA, DoC to one under a global framework (treaty or otherwise - of more pluralism in architecture); or b)the continued diversification of its offices throughout the globe to enable access to communities such as the hubs off shore coupled with increasing participation from global communities through existing ICANN structures such as increasing stakeholder participation through aggressive outreach etc; or c)something else 2)Will there be greater diversity and inclusion within SSAC? At the moment, the SSAC decides who it lets into its fold. The SSAC had recently criticised the Risk Management Framework suggesting the use of ISO instead of a standard by the NIST. In light of deliberate compromised vulnerabilities introduced coloring the perception of NIST*, and despite appearances of internationalization at the core of structure, there remains concerns that the SSAC is inevitably part of US National Cyber Security Strategic Frameworks and there is conflict between ICANN's role as a global steward versus its traditional legal obligations. P.S This was why I voted against the ALAC Statement supporting calls for implementation of NIST standard instead of the ISO standard. * See: http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/can-you-trust-nist (Hoping that this will get discussed in the IETF88) Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message:
From: Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen@icann.org> Date: November 7, 2013 at 8:26:27 AM GMT+13 To: ALAC Announce <alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, AFRALO M <afri-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA-Discuss NARALO <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, EURALO m <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, LACRALO <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, APRALO m <apac-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> Subject: [APAC-Discuss] Internet Governance Webinar Conversation Opportunity With ICANN Senior Executives
The call details are as follows:
Adigo Call Numbers : http://adigo.com/icann Adigo Conference Bridge No. Conference ID: 45151321
Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icann-soac
------------------------ Internet Governance Webinar Conversation Opportunity With ICANN Senior Executives
Dear SOAC Leaders;
Based on recent discussions within the broader community and your feedback over the past couple of weeks regarding the Montevideo statement, we think it would be most useful to have a community call before everyone departed for the ICANN Public Meeting in Buenos Aires to discuss recent Internet governance developments – specifically the Montevideo statement - and plans for a broader Internet stakeholder meeting in Brazil next year.
Fadi has had or is planning a few individual conversations with community groups, but we thought some broader community engagement opportunities with ICANN senior executives would also be helpful so that Fadi, Tarek and Theresa could:
§ Provide background and context of the recent I-Star discussions leading to the Montevideo statement;
§ Explain the Board/Staff partnership in this effort;
§ Explain what has been done to date and share perceptions of the recent IGF-Bali meeting; and
§ Highlight next steps/prep plans for Brazil next April.
As a result, we have arranged for two community webinars scheduled for next Friday, 8 November at 1200 UTC and 1900 UTC so that the team can share its thoughts and field community questions and comments. We are scheduling two separate sessions to cover the global geographic spread of the community and hope that you will be able to share information about the opportunity with your communities.
Each session will be an hour long and any questions or comments that the team can’t get to on the calls will be saved for further discussion in Buenos Aires.
The call details are as follows:
Adigo Call Numbers : http://adigo.com/icann Adigo Conference Bridge No. Conference ID: 45151321;
Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icann-soac
To help the team prepare for the sessions, please feel free to share any pre-session questions that you have with me. I will pass them on to the ICANN Strategy Team in preparation for the sessions.
Best regards,
David -- David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey
Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
Dear Sala, On 06/11/2013 23:57, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
2)Will there be greater diversity and inclusion within SSAC? At the moment, the SSAC decides who it lets into its fold. The SSAC had recently criticised the Risk Management Framework suggesting the use of ISO instead of a standard by the NIST. In light of deliberate compromised vulnerabilities introduced coloring the perception of NIST*, and despite appearances of internationalization at the core of structure, there remains concerns that the SSAC is inevitably part of US National Cyber Security Strategic Frameworks and there is conflict between ICANN's role as a global steward versus its traditional legal obligations.
P.S This was why I voted against the ALAC Statement supporting calls for implementation of NIST standard instead of the ISO standard.
* See: http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/can-you-trust-nist
I'm afraid there is some confusion here. 1. The DSSA report was not an SSAC report, it was the work of a cross-community working group called the DNS Stability and Security Analysis (DSSA) WG. 2. NIST employs in excess of 3000 people in dozens of different scientific fields. For information about NIST, I suggest http://www.nist.gov/ Cryptography is just one of the many areas of research that NIST performs. You cannot condemn an organisation on all of its research because it is linked to the United States government and because its crypto work might have backdoors. 3. Using the closed ISO standard for risk analysis instead of the open NIST standard will prevent our community from having access to the risk analysis tools which ICANN will use. I do not consider this to be a good outcome, quite the contrary. Kind regards, Olivier
Dear Sala, To add to Olivier's remarks, I think the report you may be thinking of is the Westlake consultant's report for the Board DNS Risk Management Framework Working Group. This report recommended using ISO rather than NIST (as recommended in the DSSA Report). The SSAC has made no comment on the Westlake report. Cheers, Julie ---- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Sala,
On 06/11/2013 23:57, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
2)Will there be greater diversity and inclusion within SSAC? At the moment, the SSAC decides who it lets into its fold. The SSAC had recently criticised the Risk Management Framework suggesting the use of ISO instead of a standard by the NIST. In light of deliberate compromised vulnerabilities introduced coloring the perception of NIST*, and despite appearances of internationalization at the core of structure, there remains concerns that the SSAC is inevitably part of US National Cyber Security Strategic Frameworks and there is conflict between ICANN's role as a global steward versus its traditional legal obligations.
P.S This was why I voted against the ALAC Statement supporting calls for implementation of NIST standard instead of the ISO standard.
* See: http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/can-you-trust-nist
I'm afraid there is some confusion here.
1. The DSSA report was not an SSAC report, it was the work of a cross-community working group called the DNS Stability and Security Analysis (DSSA) WG. 2. NIST employs in excess of 3000 people in dozens of different scientific fields. For information about NIST, I suggest http://www.nist.gov/ Cryptography is just one of the many areas of research that NIST performs. You cannot condemn an organisation on all of its research because it is linked to the United States government and because its crypto work might have backdoors. 3. Using the closed ISO standard for risk analysis instead of the open NIST standard will prevent our community from having access to the risk analysis tools which ICANN will use. I do not consider this to be a good outcome, quite the contrary.
Kind regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
ALAC Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
These are my questions for Fadi, Theresa et al.
1)The meeting that ICANN had with Brazil was designed to discuss the Summit in Rio, in the CEO's mind when he was talking about the Internationalisation of ICANN did he mean:
a) change of oversight from the US, via IANA, DoC to one under a global framework (treaty or otherwise - of more pluralism in architecture);
I can't speak for ICANN of course, but I do not see the need for a treaty or other "multilateral" mechanism. There are 2 things that are upsetting folks; 1) the NTIA role in authorising changes to the root. This one is relatively easy to solve, and to be blunt the GAC already has more "power" to say what goes in the root than NTIA. The GAC can give "advice" that says in essence "thou shalt not put Amazon in the rootzone" for example, but NTIA can only say "yes, IANA followed their own procedures in making this rootzone change". The ICANN BoD already passes resolutions telling IANA to delegate (or re-delegate) certain strings, so I think they could easily take on the role of NTIA in ratifying whether or not IANA followed their own processes. After all, the ICANN BoD ratifies global IP addressing policy in the same way (did the ASO follow their own process or not). 2) the fact that ICANN has a contract to run IANA from the USG. This one is harder of course due to political issues in the USA. It may be easier after the NTIA role in re: rootzone changes is shifted tot the ICANN BoD however. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
participants (4)
-
julie.hammer＠bigpond.com -
McTim -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro