Re: [RSSAC Caucus] [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] At-Large Submission to the HIT Plenary Programme
I'm changing the CC to the RSSAC Caucus, which, in addition to my vice-chair and relevant staff, includes the RSSAC and a number of DNS experts in other locations. I have not solicited their opinions, in large part due to temporal issues - you need an answer in less than 48 hours. I therefore speak for myself, and for the perspective that the RSS is and has since the 1980's been predicated on the concepts you will find in RFC RFC 2826, the IAB's Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root. I think that splintering the Internet into three shards - or a great many more, which I suspect will happen if current BRIC forces hold sway - will make the conceptual basis for the RSS very tenuous indeed, and will economically hurt those countries that pursue the path. This is far beyond slogans. The Internet has empowered the economies of 60 countries or more, and is being promoted to enhance the economies of about 140 more. By destroying the markets the Internet has created or facilitated, the BRICI countries threaten to undermine world markets - and especially their own. What is proposed by Russia and others is one of two things - either a wresting of Internet governance away from those who have done it to date to the BRIC countries, or a return to many of the concepts behind the PSTN, including the creation of national DNS roots, or possibly other divisions. We once worried that having more than a few common generic TLDs would mean that IPR-holders would have to register each name in each of them, which is something that was eventually formally set aside. Now, I worry that each name-holder will be forced to register a name in each of 200-or-so name service systems (whether DNS, DoH, or something else entirely), or forfeit whatever business they normally get from them. Those countries that follow that route also forfeit whatever business they might have gotten via those same companies. Russia has already formalized this, as I understand it; names used in Russia pretty much have to be Russian names served by Russian servers. So, from my perspective, both as chair of RSSAC and a contributor to Internet technology for rather a while, I think this is a very valid topic, and expect that RSSAC people will find it interesting.
On Dec 18, 2019, at 4:53 PM, Tanzanica S. King <tanzanica.king@icann.org> wrote:
All,
We have two confirmed plenary session topics for ICANN67:
The Domain Name Services Marketplace - Market Dynamics, Business Models and Commercial Drivers Monday, 09 March 2020, 17:00-18:30
The DNS and the IoT: Opportunities, Risks, and Challenges Thursday, 12 March 2020, 09:00-10:30
The 3rd proposed session on "Building Greater Trust in the ICANN Multi-stakeholder Process among Policymakers in Government" was withdrawn. However, At-Large has an alternate session proposal for your consideration to fill the remaining slot on Wednesday, 11 March 2020, 09:00-10:30.
Please see the session details outlined by Maureen below and let us know how you would like to proceed. We must finalize the block schedule by this Friday, 20 December, so time is of the essence.
Best,
Tanzanica
_______________________________________________ Tanzanica S. King Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design ICANN
Office +1 310 301 5800 Mobile +1 310 995 3038 www.icann.org
From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday , 18 December 2019 at 15:28 To: Tanzanica King <tanzanica.king@icann.org>, "so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org" <so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] At-Large Submission to the HIT Plenary Programme
Dear SOAC Colleagues and Tanzanica
I hope that you have excused the slip that was made earlier when one of our members submitted a proposal without going through the proper processes. However, we do have a proposal that, although I know it is a little late, our CPWG team hope you will seriously consider for inclusion into the ICANN67 HIT programme. The proposal is as follows. Sorry it is not in the formal template (in my haste to get it to you all before you go on holiday!)
Title: “One world - one internet?” Cybersecurity and geopolitics in a multistakeholder environment
This session/roundtable seeks to explore the modern day rationale for ICANN's policy of "One World. One Internet." In time of enhancing splinternet, prevailing cybersovereignity trends and states taking forever more effective measures to ensure their jurisdiction over what they consider to be "their" part of cyberspace. It is in this context that ICANN's global stewardship role has grown more significant than ever. This session seeks to explore how to best justify ICANN's "One world. One Internet" policy in the face of global disruptive trends. It specifically looks at national and regional security and privacy laws as well as new communication protocols, seeking to find how they attend or add to this challenge.
The point of departure for this panel will be the perspective onto global IG as presented in his 2018 IGF speech by President Macron, referring to three different options for global Internet: the California based one, the EU focused one and the Chinese one (https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2018-speech-by-french-p... [intgovforum.org] ). We will seek to jointly explore whether current and upcoming global trends actually do indicate Internet fragmentation or whether ICANN can legitimately sustain its “One World. One Internet” narrative. If so, what is the modern day rationale behind it?
The desired outcome of this session is to identify and present to the ICANN community a coherent, comprehensive narrative on why "One world. One internet" remains a valid policy narrative in the time of disruptive global trends and how to best communicate it to the different stakeholders outside ICANN.
Panelists (TBC): Patrik Fältström, Rod Rasmussen/Merike Kaeo, Peter Micek (AccessNow)/Thomas Rickert (EPDP), Lousewies van der Laan (?)/GAC Rep (Manal Ismail?), León Sanchez, ISOC Rep?
Keywords: cybersecurity, privacy, GDPR, splinternet, sovereignty, jurisdiction
Best regards,
Joanna Kulesza, PhD assistant professor of international law and Internet governance Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Lodz Kopcinskiego Street 8/12, 90-232 Lodz, Poland publications: https://unilodz.academia.edu/JoannaKulesza/ [unilodz.academia.edu] website: https://pl.linkedin.com/in/kuleszajoanna [pl.linkedin.com]
_______________________________________________ SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On Thursday, 19 December 2019 04:25:41 UTC Fred Baker wrote:
I'm changing the CC to the RSSAC Caucus, which, in addition to my vice-chair and relevant staff, includes the RSSAC and a number of DNS experts in other locations. ...
the "splinternet" proposal you included is quite bold.
I think that splintering the Internet into three shards - or a great many more, which I suspect will happen if current BRIC forces hold sway - will make the conceptual basis for the RSS very tenuous indeed, and will economically hurt those countries that pursue the path. ...
in 2016 i predicted this path and wrote:
Note well: I have personally reached out to operators inside the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) to ensure that they know about the Yeti-DNS project, and can participate if they so choose. This reflects my view that if some country decides some day that ICANN cannot be trusted, and they want to create their own Internet DNS system, I want them to have the necessary expertise and competence and awareness of tradeoffs, in-country, to pursue their own sovereign course. If asked, I would advise such countries that any such independence would be nasty, brutish, and short. But I will not pretend that they have to listen to me.
(http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160330_let_me_make_yeti_dns_perfectly_clear/)
What is proposed by Russia and others is one of two things - either a wresting of Internet governance away from those who have done it to date to the BRIC countries, or a return to many of the concepts behind the PSTN, including the creation of national DNS roots, or possibly other divisions.
the internet is fundamentally a new road not a new wall, and it's a new road that ignores (goes around or under) old walls. it is a "new world order" and it is based on western liberal democracy and capitalism. any existing order such as a nation which does not subscribe to democracy and/or capitalism faces an existential threat from the internet: either participate and lose one way, or don't participate and lose the other way. from your remarks here, i'm guessing that some less-western or less-democratic or less-capitalistic nation states are now indicating their self-confidence in regionalized internet-like technologies that they can govern without icann's help. (they may be right.)
... Those countries that follow that route also forfeit whatever business they might have gotten via those same companies. Russia has already formalized this, as I understand it; names used in Russia pretty much have to be Russian names served by Russian servers.
rulers often choose 100% of a small pie over 5% of a larger one, regardless of the number of grams or cubic centimeters of pie thus represented. so, to forfeit advantages in order to prevent upheaval is "a business decision" having little relationship to their self interest as understood by others. NK is an example of preferring 100% dominance over a smaller economy. they can still participate in the global economy's internet for the purpose of fraud and theft and illicit transfer of wealth into the smaller (isolated) economy, which in NK's case is the _only_ purpose they would have for connecting to the outside world.
So, from my perspective, both as chair of RSSAC and a contributor to Internet technology for rather a while, I think this is a very valid topic, and expect that RSSAC people will find it interesting.
in my case, yes, and thank you for sharing. here's the really exciting part: BRICS is correct in the model they want to pursue, even if their reasons are incompatible with the ICANN "one world, one internet" narrative. i'll explain in a reply to this message, in order to separate the threads.
From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday , 18 December 2019 at 15:28 To: Tanzanica King <tanzanica.king@icann.org>, "so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org" <so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] At-Large Submission to the HIT Plenary Programme
Dear SOAC Colleagues and Tanzanica ... Title: “One world - one internet?” Cybersecurity and geopolitics in a multistakeholder environment
This session/roundtable seeks to explore the modern day rationale for ICANN's policy of "One World. One Internet." In time of enhancing splinternet, prevailing cybersovereignity trends and states taking forever more effective measures to ensure their jurisdiction over what they consider to be "their" part of cyberspace. It is in this context that ICANN's global stewardship role has grown more significant than ever. This session seeks to explore how to best justify ICANN's "One world. One Internet" policy in the face of global disruptive trends. It specifically looks at national and regional security and privacy laws as well as new communication protocols, seeking to find how they attend or add to this challenge.
The point of departure for this panel will be the perspective onto global IG as presented in his 2018 IGF speech by President Macron, referring to three different options for global Internet: the California based one, the EU focused one and the Chinese one (https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2018-speech-by-fren ch-president-emmanuel-macron [intgovforum.org] ). We will seek to jointly explore whether current and upcoming global trends actually do indicate Internet fragmentation or whether ICANN can legitimately sustain its “One World. One Internet” narrative. If so, what is the modern day rationale behind it?
The desired outcome of this session is to identify and present to the ICANN community a coherent, comprehensive narrative on why "One world. One internet" remains a valid policy narrative in the time of disruptive global trends and how to best communicate it to the different stakeholders outside ICANN.
Panelists (TBC): Patrik Fältström, Rod Rasmussen/Merike Kaeo, Peter Micek (AccessNow)/Thomas Rickert (EPDP), Lousewies van der Laan (?)/GAC Rep (Manal Ismail?), León Sanchez, ISOC Rep?
Keywords: cybersecurity, privacy, GDPR, splinternet, sovereignty, jurisdiction
-- Paul
On Thursday, 19 December 2019 05:56:32 UTC Paul Vixie wrote: ...
BRICS is correct in the model they want to pursue, even if their reasons are incompatible with the ICANN "one world, one internet" narrative. i'll explain in a reply to this message, in order to separate the threads.
let me explain. the internet has been captured in various ways, and there is good reason to suspect unilateral intentions when contemplating each next move we see. surveillance capitalism and social control (facebook; google; cambright analytica) are examples, and while outsiders may not appreciate china's or russia's one-party rule, we can at least acknowledge that their elections cannot be interfered with by outside interests, as the US and UK elections in recent years have been. however, that's not what i mean by unilateralism. in new zealand and smaller land masses, there were for a time internet exchanges to avoid going off-shore to reach on-shore destinations, but it has almost always been the case that the metadata needed to reach on-shore destinations (such as DNS root, TLD, and 2LD servers, but also now "cloud" resources such as storage or HTML DTDs or style sheets or JS libraries) could be unreachable due to a dragged anchor killing a wet cable. the internet has never been locally resilient due to locality of scope like the networks it displaced (e.g., XNS, appletalk, decnet) due to interdependency. today much new zealand traffic snow-shoes to australia, because it doesn't matter, the interdependency problem is insoluble. however, that's not what i mean by unilateralism. no internet user wanted new GTLD's. this is something ICANN cooked up all by itself with input only from their commercial constituencies. and indeed the DNS industry is now huge (DNS is Sexy!) and there are many voices calling for more content with which to feather more nests. as a 501(c)(3) public charity, ICANN has utterly failed to represent or even to understand the public interest -- decisions are made by "goers" -- those who show up to meetings and who have time to sit on committees and participate in show-trial governance. and this is part of what i mean by unilateralism. in RFC 7706, the internet technical community found a way to decrease transparency and increase complexity of root name service, as if that was near the heart of our interdependency problems. it was not and will never be. the metadata needed on one side of a fiber cut or national firewall is hard to fully enumerate, but certainly includes quite a lot more DNS content than just the root zone. we can't even discover the DNS authority zones within our reachability region during a fiber cut, unless we can also reach the whole DNS delegation chain that denotes such servers. why we don't use multicast is that it's in nobody's fiscal/equity best interests to develop that technology. and this is another part of what i mean by unilateralism. if the BRICS countries feel a need to develop and deploy and operate internet like infrastructure that does not require cooperation with globalist interests who come with a capitalist and liberal world order narrative, they might be making a decision they won't regret, and they may also come up with solutions by which i could share gigabyte-sized files with my neighbors without each of us having to pay our respective providers to carry the data, at an RTT that includes snow-shoe to sacramento and back. because internet capture and unilateralism has done what unilateralism always does: breed more of the same. in this post-westphalian world where corporations have information supremacy, a nation wanting to restore or preserve their relevancy had better challenge the ICANN "one world, one internet" narrative. if this note weren't already overlong i would talk about anycast "public" DNS, DNS over HTTPS, Encrypted SNI, TLS 1.3, and so forth. not all tyranny is by the powerful, not everything that can be done should be done, and the internet community is nowhere near as welcoming nor is the stack as permissionless as the ICANN and IETF narratives want us to believe. but anybody in any smaller country where a plane ticket to marina del rey costs half a year of salary knows that the definition and utility of the internet they get will be driven unilaterally by wealthy western interests. it wasn't and isn't a conspiracy, but it's the end result of "rule by who can afford to participate or invest." we have an internet that _only_ works when fully connected, and that is a threat to nation-states whose governance model is incompatible with full connection. in 2011, i wrote:
The Internet's social contract is a thin and fragile thing, and it's the responsibility of every country and every government and every operator and every user to try to hold it together. It is within the power of the U.S. Government to try to impose its will on the Internet, but the results would be neither as you expect nor as any of us desire. Relevant and sustainable contributions to the Internet take the form of creation not prevention, and are multilateral and cooperative not unilateral or imposed. I hope that the U.S. Congress will keep searching for ways to protect intellectual property until one is found that does not threaten to act as a "sheer force" against the Internet's fundamentally cooperative infrastructure.
(http://www.circleid.com/posts/ 20110318_on_mandated_content_blocking_in_the_domain_name_system/) "and now, this:" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT1AnP2IxEE -- Paul
participants (2)
-
Fred Baker -
Paul Vixie