[kictanet] New role for ICANN's GAC?

Tue May 14 20:52:56 EAT 2013

Hello Alice,

Good Day, The Mechanism are straight forward within the overall IG
processes, governmental institutions be it ICT Agencies, ICT line
ministries are key players to the whole process as equal partners with
other stake holders, ones that trust is developed and governments do not
seem to hold any overriding authority over   the process then all players
are equal and know their mandate within the overall IG process.

That's my methodology, the ICT ministry acting as focal point for the
process, but each actor be it civil society, local municipalities "who seem
to be left out at times" , academics, etc playing their own role within the
context of  their national process.

Regards

Poncelet

On 14 May 2013 16:58, Alice Munyua <alice at apc.org> wrote:

>  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 listkictanet at lists.kictanet.or.kehttps://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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/pileleji%40ymca.gm
>
> 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.
>

-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
*www.ymca.gm
www.waigf.org
www.aficta.org
www.itag.gm
www.npoc.org
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
*www.diplointernetgovernance.org

*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20130514/13cc9aec/attachment.htm>