<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Should governments develop National regulations rather than
lobbying within multistakeholder processes like ICANNs? <br>
<br>
Best<br>
Alice<br>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130514_icann_and_gac_a_new_role_needed/">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130514_icann_and_gac_a_new_role_needed/</a><br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<br>
<div class="container2c">
<div class="colWrapper">
<div class="colA">
<div class="colPad">
<div id="postPage">
<div class="body">
<div class="container1c">
<div class="colPad">
<div
id="google_ads_div_Leaderboard_Top_970x90_ad_wrapper">
<div
id="google_ads_div_Leaderboard_Top_970x90_ad_container"
style="display:inline-block;">
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/">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>
</body>
</html>