Re: [EURO-Discuss] Announcement on IANA Stewardship Transition (Rinalia Abdul Rahim)
October 1st marks a sad day for the Internet. With IANA Stewardship transitioning from the NTIA to the ICANN multi-stakeholder community, the internet now is less transparent, less democratic and less accountable. INCONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 it was declared We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government (...) NTIA being part of the US Government, means, following closely the US Declaration of Independence, that if it had become destructive of anything at all regarding the oversight of the IANA functions, there would have been procedures, established for 240 years, to alter or to abolish it. Now, with the new multi-stakeholder model in place for the oversight of the IANA function, all this has been discarded. How long will it take for the rest of the world to realize this? The new IANA Stewardship is good news for all US citizens who "know", and bad news for everybody else, mainly for those not being a US citizen, all over the world. Eberhard Blocher EAHP KG P.O. Box 30 03 26 50773 Köln Germany http://www.eahp.com Tel. +49-221-9139535 Fax +49-221-2711016 http://cla.tel
On 02-10-16 07:08, Eberhard Blocher wrote:
October 1st marks a sad day for the Internet. With IANA Stewardship transitioning from the NTIA to the ICANN multi-stakeholder community, the internet now is less transparent, less democratic and less accountable.
http://domainincite.com/21063-obama-formally-hands-internet-over-to-un
Hi Eberhard. You say: The new IANA Stewardship is good news for all US citizens who "know", and bad news for everybody else, mainly for those not being a US citizen, all over the world Can you give a hint on why do you believe that? In particular, being myself a non-US citizens, I don't understand how US Government withdrawal from what was only the right of veto to changes to the DNS Root will diminish my power and rights. Cheers, Roberto Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Eberhard Blocher Inviato: domenica 2 ottobre 2016 07:09 A: euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Announcement on IANA Stewardship Transition (Rinalia Abdul Rahim) October 1st marks a sad day for the Internet. With IANA Stewardship transitioning from the NTIA to the ICANN multi-stakeholder community, the internet now is less transparent, less democratic and less accountable. IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 it was declared We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government (...) NTIA being part of the US Government, means, following closely the US Declaration of Independence, that if it had become destructive of anything at all regarding the oversight of the IANA functions, there would have been procedures, established for 240 years, to alter or to abolish it. Now, with the new multi-stakeholder model in place for the oversight of the IANA function, all this has been discarded. How long will it take for the rest of the world to realize this? The new IANA Stewardship is good news for all US citizens who "know", and bad news for everybody else, mainly for those not being a US citizen, all over the world. Eberhard Blocher EAHP KG P.O. Box 30 03 26 50773 Köln Germany http://www.eahp.com Tel. +49-221-9139535 Fax +49-221-2711016 http://cla.tel
Hello Remo, Roberto and all, please excuse the perceived lack of explanation. I have personally been to quite a few ICANN meetings, to IGF and (German language) DomainPulse, and similar meetings for more than 10 years, so this is the background of the observation I made. I really thought what I wrote was quite clear, but apparently, judging from what you are writing, this doesn't seem to be the case. The IANA Stewardship Transition has led to IANA administration being de-politicized, and this, to me, is a big step in the wrong direction. This year in February, large parts of our communitiy met in Lausanne, Switzerland, for the annual DomainPulse conference. At that meeting, Thomas Rickert, who is one of the most important people working in the CCWG, described the IANA Stewardship Transition in great detail, since most of it had been thoroughly discussed and was basically agreed on, at the time. I don't think there have been any major changes in recent months. Thomas made it quite clear that what the CCWG had been creating, for ICANN, was a model "United Nations" or a model "country", with all the basic elements in place: Executive, legal and judicial branches. Checks and balances were put in place, even the possibility for the ICANN board to be forced to step down if they should abuse the power bestowed upon them. However, what the CCWG did create was just a "model" country, not the real thing. So basically, in my opinion, there is a lack of transparency, a lack of democracy and a lack of accountability in this ICANN multi-stakeholder modell, which is supposed to govern IANA in future. Just consider what was there before, i.e. up to September 30th. The DoC, i.e. NTIA, had all the power. What would have happened if they had abused this power, for example, deleting a TLD from the root? Something which never happened, of course, but it could have happened. Well, in that case, diplomatic pressure could have been put upon the US Government. For example, imagine the NTIA deleting the .DE zone from the root. In that case, the American Ambassodor to Germany could have been summoned to report to the German Government, and Lawrence E. Strickling would certainly have had to justify his actions. This is a huge amount of power that the German Government, or any government affected, could have applied. Now imagine what would happen in future if ICANN decided to delete any zone from the root. All that would remain to be done would be sending a letter to Göran Marby, or to Steve Crocker. And then, you would have to sit back and hope and pray that one of them will answer the letter of complaint. There is no way any foreign government, or indeed anyone who is not an American citizen, could apply any direct power to Mr Marby or Mr Crocker. ICANN is a private sector company incorporated in California. There is nothing anyone can do about this. Therefore, October 1st, the IANA Stewardship Transition, was a very sad day for the Internet we know and cherish. Eberhard Blocher EAHP KG P.O. Box 30 03 26 50773 Köln Germany http://www.eahp.com Tel. +49-221-9139535 Fax +49-221-2711016 http://cla.tel Am 04.10.2016 11:39, schrieb Remo Hardeman:
Hello All,
Hello Eberhard,
As in all discussions, please explain. In my humble Point of view, I seriously doubt that a more democratic approach would be harmful to "the rest of us"
Kind regards,
Remo Hardeman
03.10.2016, 20:19, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>:
Hi Eberhard.
You say:
The new IANA Stewardship is good news for all US citizens who "know", and bad news for everybody else, mainly for those not being a US citizen, all over the world
Can you give a hint on why do you believe that?
In particular, being myself a non-US citizens, I don’t understand how US Government withdrawal from what was only the right of veto to changes to the DNS Root will diminish my power and rights.
Cheers,
Roberto
*Da:*euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] *Per conto di *Eberhard Blocher *Inviato:* domenica 2 ottobre 2016 07:09 *A:* euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Oggetto:* Re: [EURO-Discuss] Announcement on IANA Stewardship Transition (Rinalia Abdul Rahim)
October 1st marks a sad day for the Internet. With IANA Stewardship transitioning from the NTIA to the ICANN multi-stakeholder community, the internet now is less transparent, less democratic and less accountable.
*I**N**CONGRESS, J**ULY 4, 1776*
it was declared
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government (...)
NTIA being part of the US Government, means, following closely the US Declaration of Independence, that if it had become destructive of anything at all regarding the oversight of the IANA functions, there would have been procedures, established for 240 years, to alter or to abolish it.
Now, with the new multi-stakeholder model in place for the oversight of the IANA function, all this has been discarded. How long will it take for the rest of the world to realize this? The new IANA Stewardship is good news for all US citizens who "know", and bad news for everybody else, mainly for those not being a US citizen, all over the world.
Eberhard Blocher EAHP KG P.O. Box 30 03 26 50773 Köln Germany http://www.eahp.com Tel.+49-221-9139535 <tel:+49-221-9139535> Fax+49-221-2711016 <tel:+49-221-2711016> http://cla.tel
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Eberhard, On 04-10-16 12:35, Eberhard Blocher wrote:
Checks and balances were put in place, even the possibility for the ICANN board to be forced to step down if they should abuse the power bestowed upon them. However, what the CCWG did create was just a "model" country, not the real thing.
You say that like it was a bad thing! :)
So basically, in my opinion, there is a lack of transparency, a lack of democracy and a lack of accountability in this ICANN multi-stakeholder modell, which is supposed to govern IANA in future.
No. We have put some very strong measures in place (and continue refining them) to make ICANN much more transparent and accountable than any national government. But the multi-stakeholder model means that ICANN is not just accountable to governments or citizens of a particular country, but the whole Internet community.
Just consider what was there before, i.e. up to September 30th. The DoC, i.e. NTIA, had all the power. What would have happened if they had abused this power, for example, deleting a TLD from the root?
The most likely thing to have happened would have been that the Internet community would have moved away from the IANA root, and created an alternative root system. That option still exists.
Something which never happened, of course, but it could have happened. Well, in that case, diplomatic pressure could have been put upon the US Government. For example, imagine the NTIA deleting the .DE zone from the root. In that case, the American Ambassodor to Germany could have been summoned to report to the German Government, and Lawrence E. Strickling would certainly have had to justify his actions. This is a huge amount of power that the German Government, or any government affected, could have applied.
And now, instead of just the governments, all parts of the Internet community have that power, through the Empowered Community.
Now imagine what would happen in future if ICANN decided to delete any zone from the root. All that would remain to be done would be sending a letter to Göran Marby, or to Steve Crocker. And then, you would have to sit back and hope and pray that one of them will answer the letter of complaint. There is no way any foreign government, or indeed anyone who is not an American citizen, could apply any direct power to Mr Marby or Mr Crocker. ICANN is a private sector company incorporated in California. There is nothing anyone can do about this.
There you are wrong. The Empowered Community could definitely act, and, if they so wanted, replace the whole ICANN board.
Therefore, October 1st, the IANA Stewardship Transition, was a very sad day for the Internet we know and cherish.
I really have to disagree with you. You seem to want to channel all control through national governments, but not all national governments really represent their citizens, and even when they do, they only represent the interests of their own country - and the Internet covers more than one country or culture. As you seem to like imaginary scenarios, let's imagine the Netherlands insisting ICANN bans all web domains that contain material that is negative towards the Dutch Royal Family (note that I picked a pretty much absurd example in the name of political neutrality). Should it be possible for the Netherlands to exert diplomatic pressure on ICANN in that case? Would that be in the best interest of the Internet as a whole? Regards, Julf Helsingius (GNSO NCPH NCA)
Hello Eberhard, having carefully read your email, with respect I think some of the points you make need to be clarified, or put into context. 1) Your first assumption is that the only effective control is the one that has been in place for centuries, i.e. a system of rules and sanctions enforced solely by sovereign states, or religious powers. Sanctions could range from temporary severance of diplomatic relations to full-fledged war, and the generations before us suffered many of those. Your remark that « the IANA administration (is) being de-politicized » is partly correct, if your definition of « politics » applies to sovereign states, national governments or political parties. However, one of the truly interesting features of the Transition of Oversight of the IANA Functions, as suggested by our global communities and assembled by us in the ICG, is that the oversight will be a shared responsibility between various categories of stakeholders, instead of only sovereign states. Admittedly, this is a novel construct, and in its short history it has not been fully tested. You are right in suggesting that there is no proof of its effectiveness. That is why the proposal for Transition of Oversight includes several layers and mechanisms of reporting and control, in keeping with the call for improved transparency and accountability which has been voiced more loudly in recent years. 2) Your second point, with reference to a meeting in Lausanne, is that "the CCWG had been creating, for ICANN, a model "United Nations" or a model "country", with all the basic elements in place: Executive, legal and judicial branches » As I did not attend that meeting in Lausanne, I am not able to support or disprove your quote. However, allow me to point out that the Proposal for Transition of Oversight, on which the NTIA grounded its decision to let expire the IANA contract on 1st October 2016, is PRECISELY NOT a « United Nations » model: - the members of the UN are EXCLUSIVELY sovereign states, even though other stakeholders may have representation in some UN auxiliary bodies, such as the Economic & Social Council; - I leave it to the Co-Chairs of the CCWG to give you the proper wording, but I’m pretty sure they did not propose setting up a « model country » (I suppose you mean a « virtual country »). 3) Your third point is that the transition of oversight of the IANA Functions leaves the global Internet community defenseless. As I mentioned above (1), "That is why the proposal for Transition of Oversight includes several layers and mechanisms of reporting and control, in keeping with the call for improved transparency and accountability which has been voiced more loudly in recent years. » These complex mechanisms constitute an array of checks and balances, which our global Internet community must now use, in order to test their effectiveness and durability. A last remark, if I may: there is no predetermined « direction of history », and this is also true for our global Internet: more than in the first decades of ICANN, it is now the privilege, indeed the duty, of each community member to remain vigilant, and to contribute in a meaningful way to the consolidation of this unique Internet, which I call « the first truly universal infrastructure in history ». Best regards, Jean-Jacques. On 4 octobre 2016 at 12:38:12, Eberhard Blocher (director@ourtanzania.com) wrote: Hello Remo, Roberto and all, please excuse the perceived lack of explanation. I have personally been to quite a few ICANN meetings, to IGF and (German language) DomainPulse, and similar meetings for more than 10 years, so this is the background of the observation I made. I really thought what I wrote was quite clear, but apparently, judging from what you are writing, this doesn't seem to be the case. The IANA Stewardship Transition has led to IANA administration being de-politicized, and this, to me, is a big step in the wrong direction. This year in February, large parts of our communitiy met in Lausanne, Switzerland, for the annual DomainPulse conference. At that meeting, Thomas Rickert, who is one of the most important people working in the CCWG, described the IANA Stewardship Transition in great detail, since most of it had been thoroughly discussed and was basically agreed on, at the time. I don't think there have been any major changes in recent months. Thomas made it quite clear that what the CCWG had been creating, for ICANN, was a model "United Nations" or a model "country", with all the basic elements in place: Executive, legal and judicial branches. Checks and balances were put in place, even the possibility for the ICANN board to be forced to step down if they should abuse the power bestowed upon them. However, what the CCWG did create was just a "model" country, not the real thing. So basically, in my opinion, there is a lack of transparency, a lack of democracy and a lack of accountability in this ICANN multi-stakeholder modell, which is supposed to govern IANA in future. Just consider what was there before, i.e. up to September 30th. The DoC, i.e. NTIA, had all the power. What would have happened if they had abused this power, for example, deleting a TLD from the root? Something which never happened, of course, but it could have happened. Well, in that case, diplomatic pressure could have been put upon the US Government. For example, imagine the NTIA deleting the .DE zone from the root. In that case, the American Ambassodor to Germany could have been summoned to report to the German Government, and Lawrence E. Strickling would certainly have had to justify his actions. This is a huge amount of power that the German Government, or any government affected, could have applied. Now imagine what would happen in future if ICANN decided to delete any zone from the root. All that would remain to be done would be sending a letter to Göran Marby, or to Steve Crocker. And then, you would have to sit back and hope and pray that one of them will answer the letter of complaint. There is no way any foreign government, or indeed anyone who is not an American citizen, could apply any direct power to Mr Marby or Mr Crocker. ICANN is a private sector company incorporated in California. There is nothing anyone can do about this. Therefore, October 1st, the IANA Stewardship Transition, was a very sad day for the Internet we know and cherish. Eberhard Blocher EAHP KG P.O. Box 30 03 26 50773 Köln Germany http://www.eahp.com Tel. +49-221-9139535 Fax +49-221-2711016 http://cla.tel Am 04.10.2016 11:39, schrieb Remo Hardeman: Hello All, Hello Eberhard, As in all discussions, please explain. In my humble Point of view, I seriously doubt that a more democratic approach would be harmful to "the rest of us" Kind regards, Remo Hardeman 03.10.2016, 20:19, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>: Hi Eberhard. You say: The new IANA Stewardship is good news for all US citizens who "know", and bad news for everybody else, mainly for those not being a US citizen, all over the world Can you give a hint on why do you believe that? In particular, being myself a non-US citizens, I don’t understand how US Government withdrawal from what was only the right of veto to changes to the DNS Root will diminish my power and rights. Cheers, Roberto Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Eberhard Blocher Inviato: domenica 2 ottobre 2016 07:09 A: euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Announcement on IANA Stewardship Transition (Rinalia Abdul Rahim) October 1st marks a sad day for the Internet. With IANA Stewardship transitioning from the NTIA to the ICANN multi-stakeholder community, the internet now is less transparent, less democratic and less accountable. IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 it was declared We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government (...) NTIA being part of the US Government, means, following closely the US Declaration of Independence, that if it had become destructive of anything at all regarding the oversight of the IANA functions, there would have been procedures, established for 240 years, to alter or to abolish it. Now, with the new multi-stakeholder model in place for the oversight of the IANA function, all this has been discarded. How long will it take for the rest of the world to realize this? The new IANA Stewardship is good news for all US citizens who "know", and bad news for everybody else, mainly for those not being a US citizen, all over the world. Eberhard Blocher EAHP KG P.O. Box 30 03 26 50773 Köln Germany http://www.eahp.com Tel. +49-221-9139535 Fax +49-221-2711016 http://cla.tel _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Dear Jean-Jacques, feeling flattered by your long and concise response, I would like to add to my former posting, which I have to admit was not always clearly worded by me a) Thomas Rickert, at DomainPulse in Lausanne, didn't actually refer to a United Nations model; rather, this was my perception only. If I remember correctly, he did in fact use the term "virtual country", like you pointed out, for the future governing of ICANN and the IANA function. Please ask someone familiar with the teachings of Dr. Sigmund Freud why I included a reference to the UN ;-) b) I want to agree with you that I do assume the only effective control is the one that has been in place for centuries, i.e. a system of rules and sanctions enforced by the "powers that be". You understood me correctly in this respect. I do treasure the multi-stakeholder model I got to know at ICANN, since this means I am able to stand in line with someone as distinguished as Dr. Steve Crocker (before he became Chair of the ICANN board), and feel similarly respected as he is, although he has lots more experience and contributed much more to the Global Internet than I did, or am likely to ever contribute. Having said this, I am not a believer in the multi-stakeholder model as the one and only perfect solution to the future challenges the administration of the Internet will pose. Kind regards, Eberhard Eberhard Blocher EAHP KG P.O. Box 30 03 26 50773 Köln Germany http://www.eahp.com Tel. +49-221-9139535 Fax +49-221-2711016 http://cla.tel Am 04.10.2016 17:39, schrieb Jean-Jacques Subrenat:
Hello Eberhard,
having carefully read your email, with respect I think some of the points you make need to be clarified, or put into context.
1) Your first assumption is that the only effective control is the one that has been in place for centuries, i.e. a system of rules and sanctions enforced solely by sovereign states, or religious powers. Sanctions could range from temporary severance of diplomatic relations to full-fledged war, and the generations before us suffered many of those.
Your remark that « the IANA administration (is) being de-politicized » is partly correct, if your definition of « politics » applies to sovereign states, national governments or political parties. However, one of the truly interesting features of the Transition of Oversight of the IANA Functions, as suggested by our global communities and assembled by us in the ICG, is that the oversight will be a shared responsibility between various categories of stakeholders, instead of only sovereign states. Admittedly, this is a novel construct, and in its short history it has not been fully tested. You are right in suggesting that there is no proof of its effectiveness. That is why the proposal for Transition of Oversight includes several layers and mechanisms of reporting and control, in keeping with the call for improved transparency and accountability which has been voiced more loudly in recent years.
2) Your second point, with reference to a meeting in Lausanne, is that
"the CCWG had been creating, for ICANN, a model "United Nations" or a model "country", with all the basic elements in place: Executive, legal and judicial branches »
As I did not attend that meeting in Lausanne, I am not able to support or disprove your quote. However, allow me to point out that the Proposal for Transition of Oversight, on which the NTIA grounded its decision to let expire the IANA contract on 1st October 2016, is PRECISELY NOT a « United Nations » model:
- the members of the UN are EXCLUSIVELY sovereign states, even though other stakeholders may have representation in some UN auxiliary bodies, such as the Economic & Social Council;
- I leave it to the Co-Chairs of the CCWG to give you the proper wording, but I’m pretty sure they did not propose setting up a « model country » (I suppose you mean a « virtual country »).
3) Your third point is that the transition of oversight of the IANA Functions leaves the global Internet community defenseless. As I mentioned above (1), "That is why the proposal for Transition of Oversight includes several layers and mechanisms of reporting and control, in keeping with the call for improved transparency and accountability which has been voiced more loudly in recent years. » These complex mechanisms constitute an array of checks and balances, which our global Internet community must now use, in order to test their effectiveness and durability.
A last remark, if I may: there is no predetermined « direction of history », and this is also true for our global Internet: more than in the first decades of ICANN, it is now the privilege, indeed the duty, of each community member to remain vigilant, and to contribute in a meaningful way to the consolidation of this unique Internet, which I call « the first truly universal infrastructure in history ».
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
On 4 octobre 2016 at 12:38:12, Eberhard Blocher (director@ourtanzania.com <mailto:director@ourtanzania.com>) wrote:
Hello Remo, Roberto and all,
please excuse the perceived lack of explanation. I have personally been to quite a few ICANN meetings, to IGF and (German language) DomainPulse, and similar meetings for more than 10 years, so this is the background of the observation I made. I really thought what I wrote was quite clear, but apparently, judging from what you are writing, this doesn't seem to be the case.
The IANA Stewardship Transition has led to IANA administration being de-politicized, and this, to me, is a big step in the wrong direction.
This year in February, large parts of our communitiy met in Lausanne, Switzerland, for the annual DomainPulse conference. At that meeting, Thomas Rickert, who is one of the most important people working in the CCWG, described the IANA Stewardship Transition in great detail, since most of it had been thoroughly discussed and was basically agreed on, at the time. I don't think there have been any major changes in recent months. Thomas made it quite clear that what the CCWG had been creating, for ICANN, was a model "United Nations" or a model "country", with all the basic elements in place: Executive, legal and judicial branches. Checks and balances were put in place, even the possibility for the ICANN board to be forced to step down if they should abuse the power bestowed upon them. However, what the CCWG did create was just a "model" country, not the real thing.
So basically, in my opinion, there is a lack of transparency, a lack of democracy and a lack of accountability in this ICANN multi-stakeholder modell, which is supposed to govern IANA in future.
Just consider what was there before, i.e. up to September 30th. The DoC, i.e. NTIA, had all the power. What would have happened if they had abused this power, for example, deleting a TLD from the root? Something which never happened, of course, but it could have happened. Well, in that case, diplomatic pressure could have been put upon the US Government. For example, imagine the NTIA deleting the .DE zone from the root. In that case, the American Ambassodor to Germany could have been summoned to report to the German Government, and Lawrence E. Strickling would certainly have had to justify his actions. This is a huge amount of power that the German Government, or any government affected, could have applied.
Now imagine what would happen in future if ICANN decided to delete any zone from the root. All that would remain to be done would be sending a letter to Göran Marby, or to Steve Crocker. And then, you would have to sit back and hope and pray that one of them will answer the letter of complaint. There is no way any foreign government, or indeed anyone who is not an American citizen, could apply any direct power to Mr Marby or Mr Crocker. ICANN is a private sector company incorporated in California. There is nothing anyone can do about this.
Therefore, October 1st, the IANA Stewardship Transition, was a very sad day for the Internet we know and cherish.
Eberhard Blocher EAHP KG P.O. Box 30 03 26 50773 Köln Germany http://www.eahp.com Tel. +49-221-9139535 Fax +49-221-2711016 http://cla.tel Am 04.10.2016 11:39, schrieb Remo Hardeman:
Hello All,
Hello Eberhard,
As in all discussions, please explain. In my humble Point of view, I seriously doubt that a more democratic approach would be harmful to "the rest of us"
Kind regards,
Remo Hardeman
03.10.2016, 20:19, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>:
Hi Eberhard.
You say:
The new IANA Stewardship is good news for all US citizens who "know", and bad news for everybody else, mainly for those not being a US citizen, all over the world
Can you give a hint on why do you believe that?
In particular, being myself a non-US citizens, I don’t understand how US Government withdrawal from what was only the right of veto to changes to the DNS Root will diminish my power and rights.
Cheers,
Roberto
*Da:* euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] *Per conto di* Eberhard Blocher *Inviato:* domenica 2 ottobre 2016 07:09 *A:* euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Oggetto:* Re: [EURO-Discuss] Announcement on IANA Stewardship Transition (Rinalia Abdul Rahim)
October 1st marks a sad day for the Internet. With IANA Stewardship transitioning from the NTIA to the ICANN multi-stakeholder community, the internet now is less transparent, less democratic and less accountable.
*I**N* *CONGRESS, J**ULY 4, 1776*
it was declared
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government (...)
NTIA being part of the US Government, means, following closely the US Declaration of Independence, that if it had become destructive of anything at all regarding the oversight of the IANA functions, there would have been procedures, established for 240 years, to alter or to abolish it.
Now, with the new multi-stakeholder model in place for the oversight of the IANA function, all this has been discarded. How long will it take for the rest of the world to realize this? The new IANA Stewardship is good news for all US citizens who "know", and bad news for everybody else, mainly for those not being a US citizen, all over the world.
Eberhard Blocher EAHP KG P.O. Box 30 03 26 50773 Köln Germany http://www.eahp.com Tel.+49-221-9139535 <tel:+49-221-9139535> Fax+49-221-2711016 <tel:+49-221-2711016> http://cla.tel
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Good evening: Allow me a few comments on this discussion. I am aware of the nature of Eberhard's concerns and have thought about them, over the years. indeed, the NTIA authority over (a specific part of) ICANN Governance caused an irritating a-symmetry in the relationships among countries and stakeholders. However, this was tolerated in practice precisely because the diplomatic back-stop existed. Also experience confirmed that NTIA exercised their authority in an acceptable manner. Notwithstanding, the long-standing EU position has been that unilateral US control over the Internet Root was inappropriate and should be relinquished. Now, if we jump twenty years to the decision last Friday night, we hit Eberhard's three criticisms:
lack of transparency,
Here I do not agree. There is plenty of transparency, but it is not very well organised and impenetrable to newcomers. Examples: - IANA: the legal texts (contracts, agreements and formal letters) between ICANN, the PTI, the IETF Trust and the CCG, run to about 70 pages. How many of us have read them all? - Mailing Lists: I was recently criticised for not having read a document posted for public comment one fine day last August. When I checked my inbox I found that on that particular day I had received 48 messages from the CWG List alone. Only a fraction of E-Mail traffic is really a priority. But which fraction?
lack of democracy
Well, not really: the ICANN system is less difficult to penetrate and influence than many 'democratic' national institutions. As a global institution ICANN is far more democratic than most of the other international fora. However, democracy only works credibly if there is a high level of participation. Currently, unless all stakeholders (SO/ACs among others) participate, then power will drift to the 'power of the pen' and to those few highly motivated individuals who endeavour, no doubt with the best of intentions, to design the future system to their own satisfaction. Added to which the substantial economic turnover that is taking place within the domain name system is giving rise to perverse incentives. In view of the limited governmental power over public policy in ICANN, it is becoming quite important that the non-commercial participants and representatives of users' interests act effectively to ensure that decisions are taken democratically and in the public interest. Otherwise the multistakeholder system of governance could easily drift, by default, into an unacceptable level of collusion among a few economic interests.
and a lack of accountability
Most of the work to date in CCWG has been about strengthening the accountability of ICANN (particularly the Board) to the community (now known as the Empowered Community - EC). So far so good, if sometimes over the top. But the next accountability issue is different. The transition has created a large handful of new entities with their own membership and structure, to implement inter alia the accountability obtained by the Enhanced Community. Thus there is an PTI Board, there are Co Chairs and Representatives in the CCG, there will be delegates from the SO/ACs to the EC etc. In the WS2 subgroup on SO/AC accountability, I have stressed that the principal issue today, after the transition, is the accountability of those delegates and representatives in each of the new entities to their 'home' constituency and to the Internet community as a whole. So, Eberhard, I can follow you half the way but not all the way. Furthermore, 'diplomatic pressure' is not always well informed or even benign. Regards CW On 04 Oct 2016, at 12:35, Eberhard Blocher <director@ourtanzania.com> wrote:
Hello Remo, Roberto and all,
please excuse the perceived lack of explanation. I have personally been to quite a few ICANN meetings, to IGF and (German language) DomainPulse, and similar meetings for more than 10 years, so this is the background of the observation I made. I really thought what I wrote was quite clear, but apparently, judging from what you are writing, this doesn't seem to be the case.
The IANA Stewardship Transition has led to IANA administration being de-politicized, and this, to me, is a big step in the wrong direction.
This year in February, large parts of our communitiy met in Lausanne, Switzerland, for the annual DomainPulse conference. At that meeting, Thomas Rickert, who is one of the most important people working in the CCWG, described the IANA Stewardship Transition in great detail, since most of it had been thoroughly discussed and was basically agreed on, at the time. I don't think there have been any major changes in recent months. Thomas made it quite clear that what the CCWG had been creating, for ICANN, was a model "United Nations" or a model "country", with all the basic elements in place: Executive, legal and judicial branches. Checks and balances were put in place, even the possibility for the ICANN board to be forced to step down if they should abuse the power bestowed upon them. However, what the CCWG did create was just a "model" country, not the real thing.
So basically, in my opinion, there is a lack of transparency, a lack of democracy and a lack of accountability in this ICANN multi-stakeholder modell, which is supposed to govern IANA in future.
Just consider what was there before, i.e. up to September 30th. The DoC, i.e. NTIA, had all the power. What would have happened if they had abused this power, for example, deleting a TLD from the root? Something which never happened, of course, but it could have happened. Well, in that case, diplomatic pressure could have been put upon the US Government. For example, imagine the NTIA deleting the .DE zone from the root. In that case, the American Ambassodor to Germany could have been summoned to report to the German Government, and Lawrence E. Strickling would certainly have had to justify his actions. This is a huge amount of power that the German Government, or any government affected, could have applied.
Now imagine what would happen in future if ICANN decided to delete any zone from the root. All that would remain to be done would be sending a letter to Göran Marby, or to Steve Crocker. And then, you would have to sit back and hope and pray that one of them will answer the letter of complaint. There is no way any foreign government, or indeed anyone who is not an American citizen, could apply any direct power to Mr Marby or Mr Crocker. ICANN is a private sector company incorporated in California. There is nothing anyone can do about this.
Therefore, October 1st, the IANA Stewardship Transition, was a very sad day for the Internet we know and cherish.
Eberhard Blocher EAHP KG P.O. Box 30 03 26 50773 Köln Germany http://www.eahp.com Tel. +49-221-9139535 Fax +49-221-2711016 http://cla.tel Am 04.10.2016 11:39, schrieb Remo Hardeman:
Hello All,
Hello Eberhard,
As in all discussions, please explain. In my humble Point of view, I seriously doubt that a more democratic approach would be harmful to "the rest of us"
Kind regards,
Remo Hardeman
03.10.2016, 20:19, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>:
Hi Eberhard.
You say:
The new IANA Stewardship is good news for all US citizens who "know", and bad news for everybody else, mainly for those not being a US citizen, all over the world
Can you give a hint on why do you believe that?
In particular, being myself a non-US citizens, I don’t understand how US Government withdrawal from what was only the right of veto to changes to the DNS Root will diminish my power and rights.
Cheers,
Roberto
Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Eberhard Blocher Inviato: domenica 2 ottobre 2016 07:09 A: euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Announcement on IANA Stewardship Transition (Rinalia Abdul Rahim)
October 1st marks a sad day for the Internet. With IANA Stewardship transitioning from the NTIA to the ICANN multi-stakeholder community, the internet now is less transparent, less democratic and less accountable.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
it was declared
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government (...)
NTIA being part of the US Government, means, following closely the US Declaration of Independence, that if it had become destructive of anything at all regarding the oversight of the IANA functions, there would have been procedures, established for 240 years, to alter or to abolish it.
Now, with the new multi-stakeholder model in place for the oversight of the IANA function, all this has been discarded. How long will it take for the rest of the world to realize this? The new IANA Stewardship is good news for all US citizens who "know", and bad news for everybody else, mainly for those not being a US citizen, all over the world.
Eberhard Blocher EAHP KG P.O. Box 30 03 26 50773 Köln Germany http://www.eahp.com Tel. +49-221-9139535 Fax +49-221-2711016 http://cla.tel
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Dear Eberhard, Thanks for the long explanation, I understand much better now. I will provide just a couple of comments. First of all, even before 1. October the NTIA had no power to do changes to the root, like deleting a TLD. Their role was to approve the changes submitted by IANA. In simple words, they could “veto” a change, but not create one. They have never used this “veto” power, at least in the 6 years when I have been on the ICANN Board. I can also tell a little story about this. Paul Twomey, then CEO, and myself, then Vice-Chair of the Board, went to see John Kneuer, the predecessor of Larry Strickling. In the discussion, we pointed out that there was some unhappiness about the “power” that the US Government had on the DNS root. John replied that the NTIA did not oppose even the delegation of .kp to North Korea a couple of months earlier, what else could they do to show that they did not want to interfere with the management of the root? Of course, the problem you raise is real. What if ICANN gets crazy and deletes a record from the root? Formerly, NTIA could have vetoed the change, but now? Well, we have no one who will take action on our behalf. That means, we need to do it ourselves. Not with a letter to Göran, that I agree would be useless, but crating a real threat. With the new rules the community has even the power to remove Directors. But the main element of pressure here is the threat to create an alternate root that does not contain the unwanted change. But I believe that we will never get there. After all, the Board is composed by people selected by the community directly (by the SO/AC) or indirectly (by NomCom, whose representatives are selected by the community anyway). Glad to continue this discussion next February in Vienna, at DomainPulse. Regards, Roberto Da: Eberhard Blocher [mailto:director@ourtanzania.com] Inviato: martedì 4 ottobre 2016 12:35 A: Remo Hardeman Cc: Roberto Gaetano; euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] R: Announcement on IANA Stewardship Transition (Rinalia Abdul Rahim) Hello Remo, Roberto and all, please excuse the perceived lack of explanation. I have personally been to quite a few ICANN meetings, to IGF and (German language) DomainPulse, and similar meetings for more than 10 years, so this is the background of the observation I made. I really thought what I wrote was quite clear, but apparently, judging from what you are writing, this doesn't seem to be the case. The IANA Stewardship Transition has led to IANA administration being de-politicized, and this, to me, is a big step in the wrong direction. This year in February, large parts of our communitiy met in Lausanne, Switzerland, for the annual DomainPulse conference. At that meeting, Thomas Rickert, who is one of the most important people working in the CCWG, described the IANA Stewardship Transition in great detail, since most of it had been thoroughly discussed and was basically agreed on, at the time. I don't think there have been any major changes in recent months. Thomas made it quite clear that what the CCWG had been creating, for ICANN, was a model "United Nations" or a model "country", with all the basic elements in place: Executive, legal and judicial branches. Checks and balances were put in place, even the possibility for the ICANN board to be forced to step down if they should abuse the power bestowed upon them. However, what the CCWG did create was just a "model" country, not the real thing. So basically, in my opinion, there is a lack of transparency, a lack of democracy and a lack of accountability in this ICANN multi-stakeholder modell, which is supposed to govern IANA in future. Just consider what was there before, i.e. up to September 30th. The DoC, i.e. NTIA, had all the power. What would have happened if they had abused this power, for example, deleting a TLD from the root? Something which never happened, of course, but it could have happened. Well, in that case, diplomatic pressure could have been put upon the US Government. For example, imagine the NTIA deleting the .DE zone from the root. In that case, the American Ambassodor to Germany could have been summoned to report to the German Government, and Lawrence E. Strickling would certainly have had to justify his actions. This is a huge amount of power that the German Government, or any government affected, could have applied. Now imagine what would happen in future if ICANN decided to delete any zone from the root. All that would remain to be done would be sending a letter to Göran Marby, or to Steve Crocker. And then, you would have to sit back and hope and pray that one of them will answer the letter of complaint. There is no way any foreign government, or indeed anyone who is not an American citizen, could apply any direct power to Mr Marby or Mr Crocker. ICANN is a private sector company incorporated in California. There is nothing anyone can do about this. Therefore, October 1st, the IANA Stewardship Transition, was a very sad day for the Internet we know and cherish. Eberhard Blocher EAHP KG P.O. Box 30 03 26 50773 Köln Germany http://www.eahp.com Tel. +49-221-9139535 Fax +49-221-2711016 http://cla.tel Am 04.10.2016 11:39, schrieb Remo Hardeman: Hello All, Hello Eberhard, As in all discussions, please explain. In my humble Point of view, I seriously doubt that a more democratic approach would be harmful to "the rest of us" Kind regards, Remo Hardeman 03.10.2016, 20:19, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com><mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>: Hi Eberhard. You say: The new IANA Stewardship is good news for all US citizens who "know", and bad news for everybody else, mainly for those not being a US citizen, all over the world Can you give a hint on why do you believe that? In particular, being myself a non-US citizens, I don’t understand how US Government withdrawal from what was only the right of veto to changes to the DNS Root will diminish my power and rights. Cheers, Roberto Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] Per conto di Eberhard Blocher Inviato: domenica 2 ottobre 2016 07:09 A: euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Announcement on IANA Stewardship Transition (Rinalia Abdul Rahim) October 1st marks a sad day for the Internet. With IANA Stewardship transitioning from the NTIA to the ICANN multi-stakeholder community, the internet now is less transparent, less democratic and less accountable. IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 it was declared We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government (...) NTIA being part of the US Government, means, following closely the US Declaration of Independence, that if it had become destructive of anything at all regarding the oversight of the IANA functions, there would have been procedures, established for 240 years, to alter or to abolish it. Now, with the new multi-stakeholder model in place for the oversight of the IANA function, all this has been discarded. How long will it take for the rest of the world to realize this? The new IANA Stewardship is good news for all US citizens who "know", and bad news for everybody else, mainly for those not being a US citizen, all over the world. Eberhard Blocher EAHP KG P.O. Box 30 03 26 50773 Köln Germany http://www.eahp.com Tel. +49-221-9139535<tel:+49-221-9139535> Fax +49-221-2711016<tel:+49-221-2711016> http://cla.tel _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
participants (6)
-
Christopher Wilkinson -
Eberhard Blocher -
Jean-Jacques Subrenat -
Johan Helsingius -
Remo Hardeman -
Roberto Gaetano