There are two assumptions that I'm not 100% convinced are entirely true
1- That a new supra entity will be ever able to deliver any solutions for level 8+ issues that please all when on the equal basis argument some will lobby to be more equal than others
2- That using ICANN as a reference, the multistakeholder model works reasonably well to be expanded
But I appreciate you taking the time to clarify some concepts and I agree that better and more coordination is needed but I believe we are trying to design the roof when we are not still sure if we have the right foundation.
My .02
Regards
Jorge
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:19 AM, John Curran <jcurran@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 21, 2013, at 6:21 AM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Jari,
> At 11:17 19-11-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> However, while the site is coming up, it would be useful to think about the kinds of things that could be usefully discussed. There are obviously many specific issues which belong to already existing organisations. Such as protocol parameter registry topic being an IETF/IAB matter, TLD assignments an ICANN matter, etc. There's little reason to create new places to discuss such topics. On the other hand, it would probably be good to have a place to discuss the overall situation, relate work in different organisations to each other, build more co-operation, etc. What are your thoughts on this? What topics do you think need additional attention?
>
> According to (unconfirmed) news articles the CEO of ICANN mentioned that there's now a "coalition" of the "I*" groups (ICANN, IETF, etc), big-name companies such as Disney, and governments such as Brazil, focused on creating multistakeholder solutions to problems such as spam and cyber-bullying.
>
> I have participated in the antispam discussions for some time. I don't recall seeing anyone from Disney participating in the discussions [1]. According to ICANN there is growing pressures to address issues outside its sphere of responsibility as a motivating factor in forming a high-level panel. From an IETF perspective I have some doubts about whether it is a good idea for the IETF to join a coalition where the IETF Chair would be signing mission creep [2] statements.
>
> The IETF has been perceived as neutral. It can take a position for or against the interests of Country X if there is consensus for that. I don't think that the IETF leaders should rely on the consent of the governed in taking such a position or create a fait accompli [3].
>
> The IETF leaders [4] have been silent about the topic in the subject line; I am excluding the help comments about the 1net.org web site. That is not a good omen for openness.
I'm not an IETF leader, but have had a ringside seat for some of the recent
developments and figured that providing a summary of events might be helpful
to folks on this list for context. I'm simply trying to provide some framework
in which to consider the recent events (and apologies for length, but it would
take me weeks to express this all more succinctly.)
As has already been noted and discussed, the leadership of several Internet
organizations (ISOC, ICANN, IAB/IETF, IANA, RIRs, W3C, aka "I*") have been
getting together periodically for better coordination. While there have been
statements issued in the past after such meetings, the "Montevideo Statement"
issued after this years meeting (i.e. post-Snowden) made some observations
about the Internet which were fairly obvious but hadn't quite been said in a
clear and consistent manner previously. High-level points include:
- Importance of globally coherent Internet operations
- Concern over Internet fragmentation at a national level
- Strong concern over pervasive monitoring and surveillance
- Ongoing need to address Internet Governance challenges,
- Need for evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation
- Need for globalization of ICANN and IANA functions
- Need to allow all stakeholders (inc. governments) to participate equally
- Need for the transition to IPv6 to remain a top priority globally.
<http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation>
In some worlds, this might have been the end of it and folks would have all
gone back to their organizations and worked on various pieces of the above...
For example, the IETF Vancouver discussions on pervasive monitoring/perpass,
For ISOC, these include issues like evolution of multistakeholder Internet
cooperation; for ICANN, globalization efforts in preparation for all
governments having an equal role; IPv6 efforts by the RIRs, ISOC, etc.
Many of these issues are of interest to parties not participating today in IETF,
ISOC, ICANN, the RIRs, W3C; furthermore, the collective "I*" organizations are
seen as a narrow segment of society, i.e. often called the "Internet technical
community" when characterized by folks and organizations completely unaware of how
all of this works, but quite aware that the decisions made by these organizations
can affect their use of the Internet.
As much as we're all comfortable working in the existing organizations, there is a
strong desire for being able to discuss Internet layer 8+ issues in a forum which
puts everyone in equal basis (i.e. not within "Internet technical organizations")
There is actually an organization which does a good job of facilitating discussion
(The Internet Governance Forum, or "IGF") which is chartered under UN DESA and has
been going on for nearly a decade. One of the frustrations that everyone has with
the IGF is that it discusses problems, but very intentionally does not attempt to
drive towards solutions; i.e. it's a forum for sharing views minus any mechanisms
for developing outcomes. These means that discussions of "Internet Problems, e.g.
spam, surveillance, child protection, copyright enforcement, anonymity, botnets/ddos,
privacy, network neutrality, freedom of speech, cybersecurity, privacy, deep packet
inspection, DNS takedowns, user tracking/cookies, etc., are discussed without any
clear roadmap emerging for solutions (it's worth noting that some of these "problems"
are actually features for others folks, all varying based on one's perspective.)
Ironically, some of these perceived "Internet Governance challenges" actually do
have solutions (or if not solutions, at least best practices in how to cope with
the present realities), and it's lack of communication outside the Internet orgs
that is really needed to get the word out there. For example, the IETF has a
number of BCPs which could help in the mitigation of spam, botnets, and other
problems; unfortunately, availability of these technical solutions is seldom
mentioned when governments, businesses, civil society get together and discuss
"Internet problems". The folks at the Internet Society did a great job noting
this situation (see <http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/internet-collaborative-stewardship-framework-tackling-challenges-–-political-technical>)
on their web site for more details, and it was suggested that we should follow
up the Montevideo Statement with something more collaborative and effective that
the present discussion-without-outcome model of the Internet Governance Forum.
That was the thought behind having a neutral forum to discuss these Internet
problems, i.e. what is now being called the "1net" initiative. (To insert a
personal view, I do believe that having a neutral forum where we can better
engage outside of the "Internet Technical community" on Internet issues is a
very good thing, particularly if it leads to collaboration with governments
rather than having them go elsewhere and make unilateral decisions in this
areas...)
I hope this explains a little bit about the Montevideo Statement and "1net"
(at least as I best understand it.) When someone asks me what "1net" is about,
I believe that it is intended to be a neutral, community-based initiative to
discuss Internet problems towards potential collaborative solutions. I have
absolutely no idea which topics might get picked up for consideration (and that
is truly unknowable until there still needs to be a Steering Committee seated)
but it is my expectation that "1net" will help promote existing IETF technical
solutions (or potentially identify needs for additional IETF technical solutions)
to the extent that its discussions touch on Internet protocols. Similarly, it
should not represent a change in mission for any of the organizations that get
involved; it's just intended as way of connecting problems and solutions, i.e.
it's a mechanism "for evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation"
FYI,
/John
Disclaimer: I am a signatory to the "Montevideo Statement on the Future of
Internet Cooperation" (both individually and on behalf of ARIN),
but the above solely represents my personal views and understanding.