[kictanet] New role for ICANN's GAC?

[Alice Munyua]

Should governments develop National regulations  rather than lobbying  
within multistakeholder processes like ICANNs?

Best
Alice


http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130514_icann_and_gac_a_new_role_needed/


Syracuse University professor Milton Mueller published a blog 
<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/05/13/will-the-gac-go-away-if-the-board-doesnt-follow-its-advice/> 
under the title "Will the GAC go away if the Board doesn't follow its 
advice?". Having been to a number of (very limited) ICANN meetings on 
behalf of law enforcement cooperation, I would like to share a few --- 
probably thought provoking --- observations. The GAC should not leave 
ICANN but it may be more efficient if it's role changed and it's efforts 
were aimed at a different form of output.

*Governments and direct influence*

I know that I should explain here what ICANN and the GAC is, but this 
article is only of interest if you already have some background.

Over the past few years the role of the GAC, Government Advisory Board, 
within ICANN, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, seems 
to have changed. Having started as an advisory board, giving an advice 
to the ICANN board, which can be ignored or only taken to heed in parts, 
GAC operates more forceful. From advice to orders it seems.

As ICANN is multi stakeholder all the way and, as most internet related 
organs work, bottom up and through consensus only. Perhaps the most 
stifling form of democracy, but democracy it is. Show up or participate 
remotely and your voice is heard.

In this environment governments are seeking attention for their needs 
and concerns over the internet. Shouldn't they ask themselves: Is this 
the correct place to have direct influence?

*Why are governments concerned?*

The internet as we know it was created outside the view and influence of 
governments and by the time of the commercial boom, let's say, since 
1998, most western countries had liberalised the telecommunication 
markets. If anything was regulated it was the old telephony and access 
fees, not the internet.

With the rise of commercial opportunities also other opportunities arose 
for criminal actors, hacktivists, activists, free speech advocates, 
state actors, etc. The results of these opportunities concern 
governments (of all sorts, for different reasons) as all sorts of 
national interest from public safety to economic are at stake. By the 
time governments seriously started to look around for enforcement 
matters and regulations they faced a global challenge. Hence the drive 
to have more say on internet related policy discussions. Hence more 
interest in ICANN, ITU, IGF, etc., but mostly ICANN it seems. But again 
is ICANN the right places to have direct influence?

*GAC and ICANN*

What also surprises me, is that governments put all this effort into 
ICANN. In the end this organisation handles only one aspect of what 
makes the internet work. Is this because it is the best organised one? 
There are so much more topics and equally important ones, where there 
seems less involvement. The RIRs, technical internet bodies, CERT 
meetings, etc., are less government attended. So again is ICANN the 
right place to have influence?

*National laws*

If a government wants real influence it has to write law that is binding 
within its own country. It would be advisable that (several) governments 
coordinate on laws and regulations, e.g. the E.U., perhaps even beyond. 
The three times a year GAC meeting could be great for coordination. Why 
go national?

The internet is only as stateless as the first cable coming on/into land 
somewhere. Everything behind that is within a nation state. This is 
where influence starts or could start should a government wish to have 
influence.

Let's say that a government wants a ruling on:

1) a validation of (a domain name registration by) registrars and 
registries and resellers. It can lobby with ICANN and hope for 
self-regulation or it can write it in the national law;

2) abused IP addresses revocation. It can lobby with the RIRs (Regional 
Internet Registries) or write a regulation into national law;

3) revocation of abused domain names? Idem;

4) National organisations implementing best practices developed at the 
IETF, it can lobby there or oblige national organisations, e.g. ISPs, to 
respond and implement within six months through national law;

5) etc., etc., etc.

A national regulation, whether directly enforced or through mandatory 
self-regulation, would be much more effective from a government's 
perspective than lobbying within multi-stakeholder groups and hope for 
the best. Does this mean governments have to leave these groups?

*A new role*

I'm not claiming that governments should leave ICANN. I'm not even 
propagating regulatory regimes here. To the contrary, but I do think the 
present effort could be bettered. Governments should use ICANN meetings, 
and all others around the internet, to understand which topics are 
important, what issues are at stake, inform themselves as good as 
possible from all sides by asking all the right questions and to have a 
true understand of it all. From this understanding they can build their 
policies, using all that acquired information.

Policy that on the one hand aids the development of the internet and the 
economy while on the other assists in making it more secure. There is a 
fine line to walk here, but a line governments need to walk to be most 
effective on both sides. And, without the aid of industry it will never 
come about.

*Conclusion*

So, governments, lay down your ears and give your advice, but then go 
home and act on it in the best way possible. Preferably coordinated.

*
*


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20130514/937269a4/attachment.htm>