Re: Recent Internet governance events (was: Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance)

[Jorge Amodio <[e-mail]>]

There are two assumptions that I'm not 100% convinced are entirely true

1- That a new supra entity will be ever able to deliver any solutions for
level 8+ issues that please all when on the equal basis argument some will
lobby to be more equal than others

2- That using ICANN as a reference, the multistakeholder model works
reasonably well to be expanded

But I appreciate you taking the time to clarify some concepts and I agree
that better and more coordination is needed but I believe we are trying to
design the roof when we are not still sure if we have the right foundation.

My .02

Regards
Jorge



On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:19 AM, John Curran <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Nov 21, 2013, at 6:21 AM, SM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jari,
> > At 11:17 19-11-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
> >> However, while the site is coming up, it would be useful to think about
> the kinds of things that could be usefully discussed. There are obviously
> many specific issues which belong to already existing organisations. Such
> as protocol parameter registry topic being an IETF/IAB matter, TLD
> assignments an ICANN matter, etc. There's little reason to create new
> places to discuss such topics. On the other hand, it would probably be good
> to have a place to discuss the overall situation, relate work in different
> organisations to each other, build more co-operation, etc. What are your
> thoughts on this? What topics do you think need additional attention?
> >
> > According to (unconfirmed) news articles the CEO of ICANN mentioned that
> there's now a "coalition" of the "I*" groups (ICANN, IETF, etc), big-name
> companies such as Disney, and governments such as Brazil, focused on
> creating multistakeholder solutions to problems ­ such as spam and
> cyber-bullying.
> >
> > I have participated in the antispam discussions for some time.  I don't
> recall seeing anyone from Disney participating in the discussions [1].
>  According to ICANN there is growing pressures to address issues outside
> its sphere of responsibility as a motivating factor in forming a high-level
> panel.  From an IETF perspective I have some doubts about whether it is a
> good idea for the IETF to join a coalition where the IETF Chair would be
> signing mission creep [2] statements.
> >
> > The IETF has been perceived as neutral.  It can take a position for or
> against the interests of Country X if there is consensus for that.   I
> don't think that the IETF leaders should rely on the consent of the
> governed in taking such a position or create a fait accompli [3].
> >
> > The IETF leaders [4] have been silent about the topic in the subject
> line; I am excluding the help comments about the 1net.org web site.  That
> is not a good omen for openness.
>
> I'm not an IETF leader, but have had a ringside seat for some of the recent
> developments and figured that providing a summary of events might be
> helpful
> to folks on this list for context.  I'm simply trying to provide some
> framework
> in which to consider the recent events (and apologies for length, but it
> would
> take me weeks to express this all more succinctly.)
>
> As has already been noted and discussed, the leadership of several Internet
> organizations (ISOC, ICANN, IAB/IETF, IANA, RIRs, W3C, aka "I*") have been
> getting together periodically for better coordination.  While there have
> been
> statements issued in the past after such meetings, the "Montevideo
> Statement"
> issued after this years meeting (i.e. post-Snowden) made some observations
> about the Internet which were fairly obvious but hadn't quite been said in
> a
> clear and consistent manner previously.  High-level points include:
>
>    - Importance of globally coherent Internet operations
>    - Concern over Internet fragmentation at a national level
>    - Strong concern over pervasive monitoring and surveillance
>    - Ongoing need to address Internet Governance challenges,
>    - Need for evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation
>    - Need for globalization of ICANN and IANA functions
>    - Need to allow all stakeholders (inc. governments) to participate
> equally
>    - Need for the transition to IPv6 to remain a top priority globally.
> <
> http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation
> >
>
> In some worlds, this might have been the end of it and folks would have all
> gone back to their organizations and worked on various pieces of the
> above...
> For example, the IETF Vancouver discussions on pervasive
> monitoring/perpass,
> For ISOC, these include issues like evolution of multistakeholder Internet
> cooperation; for ICANN, globalization efforts in preparation for all
> governments having an equal role; IPv6 efforts by the RIRs, ISOC, etc.
>
> Many of these issues are of interest to parties not participating today in
> IETF,
> ISOC, ICANN, the RIRs, W3C; furthermore, the collective "I*" organizations
> are
> seen as a narrow segment of society, i.e. often called the "Internet
> technical
> community" when characterized by folks and organizations completely
> unaware of how
> all of this works, but quite aware that the decisions made by these
> organizations
> can affect their use of the Internet.
>
> As much as we're all comfortable working in the existing organizations,
> there is a
> strong desire for being able to discuss Internet layer 8+ issues in a
> forum which
> puts everyone in equal basis (i.e. not within "Internet technical
> organizations")
> There is actually an organization which does a good job of facilitating
> discussion
> (The Internet Governance Forum, or "IGF") which is chartered under UN DESA
> and has
> been going on for nearly a decade.  One of the frustrations that everyone
> has with
> the IGF is that it discusses problems, but very intentionally does not
> attempt to
> drive towards solutions; i.e. it's a forum for sharing views minus any
> mechanisms
> for developing outcomes.  These means that discussions of "Internet
> Problems, e.g.
> spam, surveillance, child protection, copyright enforcement, anonymity,
> botnets/ddos,
> privacy, network neutrality, freedom of speech, cybersecurity, privacy,
> deep packet
> inspection, DNS takedowns, user tracking/cookies, etc., are discussed
> without any
> clear roadmap emerging for solutions (it's worth noting that some of these
> "problems"
> are actually features for others folks, all varying based on one's
> perspective.)
>
> Ironically, some of these perceived "Internet Governance challenges"
> actually do
> have solutions (or if not solutions, at least best practices in how to
> cope with
> the present realities), and it's lack of communication outside the
> Internet orgs
> that is really needed to get the word out there.  For example, the IETF
> has a
> number of BCPs which could help in the mitigation of spam, botnets, and
> other
> problems; unfortunately, availability of these technical solutions is
> seldom
> mentioned when governments, businesses, civil society get together and
> discuss
> "Internet problems".  The folks at the Internet Society did a great job
> noting
> this situation (see <
> http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/internet-collaborative-stewardship-framework-tackling-challenges-–-political-technical
> >)
> on their web site for more details, and it was suggested that we should
> follow
> up the Montevideo Statement with something more collaborative and
> effective that
> the present discussion-without-outcome model of the Internet Governance
> Forum.
> That was the thought behind having a neutral forum to discuss these
> Internet
> problems, i.e. what is now being called the "1net" initiative.  (To insert
> a
> personal view, I do believe that having a neutral forum where we can better
> engage outside of the "Internet Technical community" on Internet issues is
> a
> very good thing, particularly if it leads to collaboration with governments
> rather than having them go elsewhere and make unilateral decisions in this
> areas...)
>
> I hope this explains a little bit about the Montevideo Statement and "1net"
> (at least as I best understand it.)  When someone asks me what "1net" is
> about,
> I believe that it is intended to be a neutral, community-based initiative
> to
> discuss Internet problems towards potential collaborative solutions.  I
> have
> absolutely no idea which topics might get picked up for consideration (and
> that
> is truly unknowable until there still needs to be a Steering Committee
> seated)
> but it is my expectation that "1net" will help promote existing IETF
> technical
> solutions (or potentially identify needs for additional IETF technical
> solutions)
> to the extent that its discussions touch on Internet protocols.
>  Similarly, it
> should not represent a change in mission for any of the organizations that
> get
> involved; it's just intended as way of connecting problems and solutions,
> i.e.
> it's a mechanism "for evolution of global multistakeholder Internet
> cooperation"
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> Disclaimer:  I am a signatory to the "Montevideo Statement on the Future of
>              Internet Cooperation" (both individually and on behalf of
> ARIN),
>              but the above solely represents my personal views and
> understanding.
>
>
>