[kictanet] New role for ICANN's GAC?

Tue May 14 19:58:44 EAT 2013

Rather, what mechanisms should have in place to ensure we coordinate our 
engagements with the various Internet Governance processes?

best
Alice

> 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.
>
> *
> *
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
>
> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
>
> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20130514/d5ec5d7c/attachment.htm>