<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Hello Alice,<br><br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br></div>Regards<br><br></div>Poncelet<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 14 May 2013 16:58, Alice Munyua <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alice@apc.org" target="_blank">alice@apc.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Rather, what mechanisms should have in
place to ensure we coordinate our engagements with the various
Internet Governance processes?<br>
<br>
best<br>
Alice<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
Should governments develop National regulations rather than
lobbying within multistakeholder processes like ICANNs? <br>
<br>
Best<br>
Alice<br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130514_icann_and_gac_a_new_role_needed/" target="_blank">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130514_icann_and_gac_a_new_role_needed/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
Syracuse University professor Milton Mueller
published <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/05/13/will-the-gac-go-away-if-the-board-doesnt-follow-its-advice/" target="_blank">a
blog</a> 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. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p> <strong>Governments and direct influence</strong>
</p>
<p> 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. </p>
<p> 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. </p>
<p> 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. </p>
<p> 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? </p>
<p> <strong>Why are governments concerned?</strong> </p>
<p> 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. </p>
<p> 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? </p>
<p> <strong>GAC and ICANN</strong> </p>
<p> 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?
</p>
<p> <strong>National laws</strong> </p>
<p> 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? </p>
<p> 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. </p>
<p> Let's say that a government wants a ruling on: </p>
<p> 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; </p>
<p> 2) abused IP addresses revocation. It can lobby
with the RIRs (Regional Internet Registries) or
write a regulation into national law; </p>
<p> 3) revocation of abused domain names? Idem; </p>
<p> 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; </p>
<p> 5) etc., etc., etc. </p>
<p> 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? </p>
<p> <strong>A new role</strong> </p>
<p> 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. </p>
<p> 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. </p>
<p> <strong>Conclusion</strong> </p>
<p> 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. </p>
<p><strong><br>
</strong></p>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><pre>_______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list
<a href="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke" target="_blank">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a>
<a href="https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet" target="_blank">https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet</a>
Unsubscribe or change your options at <a href="https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org" target="_blank">https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org</a>
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.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
kictanet mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet" target="_blank">https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet</a><br>
<br>
Unsubscribe or change your options at <a href="https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pileleji%40ymca.gm" target="_blank">https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pileleji%40ymca.gm</a><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS<br>Coordinator<br>The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio<br>MDI Road Kanifing South<br>P. O. Box 421 Banjul<br>The Gambia, West Africa<br>
Tel: (220) 4370240<br>Fax:(220) 4390793<br>Cell:(220) 9912508<br>Skype: pons_utd<br><i><span style="color:rgb(0,0,153)"><a href="http://www.ymca.gm" target="_blank">www.ymca.gm</a><br><a href="http://www.waigf.org" target="_blank">www.waigf.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.aficta.org" target="_blank">www.aficta.org</a><br><a href="http://www.itag.gm" target="_blank">www.itag.gm</a><br><a href="http://www.npoc.org" target="_blank">www.npoc.org</a><br><a href="http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753" target="_blank">http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753</a><br>
</span></i><cite><span style="color:rgb(0,0,153)"><a href="http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org" target="_blank">www.diplointernetgovernance.org</a><br><br></span><b><span style="color:rgb(0,0,153)"><br></span></b><br></cite><br>
</div>