This morning at the NCUC meeting I asked Strickling about the issues
regarding internationalization of the oversight in a post-NTIA era.
My view is that in the IANA transition process there are opportunities
for advancing an internationalization agenda. In the case of the numbers
community, I think there are no significant difficulties on this topic,
given the way the registries' system is organized and operating. In
fact, I think the methods and processes conducted jointly by the RIRs
have practically turned the number governance into almost a non-issue --
despite the fact that the community bears [a small] part of
responsibility for the difficulties in transitioning to IPv6.
Mnemonics is another matter entirely, a good measure of which is shown
by the complications in the CWG process (while the numbers community has
already delivered its proposal). A component of this process, although
totally ignored in the CWG, is internationalization. In any "model"
which may win this process, whether internal or external, the issues of
accountability, as well as of policy and compliance are at stake. One of
these issues is jurisdiction and the international nature of the domain
name system.
The multistakeholder approach adopted in any reorganization of the
administration and oversight instances need to include the international
component -- stakeholders from all sectors and all regions. Further, the
oversight system cannot be vulnerable to challenges like the one in the
example below, revealed today by Russia in a GAC meeting. Or the strong
objections made by France regarding the same in ICANN51.
How could an oversight mechanism (contract co., trust etc) be protected
as much as possible from specific national jurisdictions? To host it in
a country which accepts international organizations without the
precondition of being part of the UN? Uruguay, for instance? How to
guarantee balanced international representation in this mechanism's
board and executive structure?
If separability is adopted, e.g, with the Trust external model, could
this Trust be constituted in such a way?
I think it is surprising that not even the word "international" is in
the CWG reports. There is no worry about this, while we have to
chronically confront the challenges posed by a group of States who would
like to either move ICANN from the USA (which in my view is practically
impossible) or turn critical resources' governance to the ITU (including
a significant portion of organized civil society which is a militant of
Internet governance issues). Is it worth to simply ignore this and go
ahead with a new structure entirely based in the USA and under its laws?
My request is that NCSG seriously considers these factors in the transition.
fraternal regards
--c.a.
>>RUSSIA: I NEED TO MAKE A STATEMENT. PLEASE BE PREPARED, BECAUSE I
WILL SPEAK IN RUSSIAN.
WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND HIGHLIGHT A RECENT DECISION MADE
BY A U.S.-BASED REGISTRAR.
THERE WAS A NOTIFICATION FOR REGISTRANTS LOCATED IN A CERTAIN
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, IN A CERTAIN GEOGRAPHICAL REGION ABOUT TERMINATION OF
THE ACCOUNTS, CANCELLATION OF THE DOMAINS, AND REVOCATION OF THEIR
DOMAIN NAMES AS OF JANUARY 31, 2015.
THIS REGISTRAR OFFERED THE EXPLANATION OF TRADE RESTRICTIONS THAT
PREVENT THE U.S. COMPANIES FROM CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITH COMPANIES AND
INDIVIDUALS LOCATED IN THE CRYMEA.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT RUSSIA HAS ALWAYS OPPOSED ANY SANGS
INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE AREA OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION
TECHNOLOGIES, IN PARTICULAR IN WHAT REFERS TO THE INTERNET. SIMILAR
SANCTIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE IMPOSED ON INTERNET USERS SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED A RESTRICTION OF UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS TO RECEIVE
INFORMATION AND IDEAS REGARDLESS OF ANY FRONTIERS. AND THIS IS IN
VIOLATION OF THE ARTICLE 19 OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN
RIGHTS, AND ALSO A VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES AND THE SPIRIT OF WSIS,
THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY, IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE
OF ICT. ALSO A VIOLATION OF THE TUNIS AGENDA FOR THE INFORMATION SOCIETY.
WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THIS INCIDENT HIGHLIGHTS THE ENTIRE INTERNET
GOVERNANCE SITUATION WITH A PARTICULAR GOVERNMENT USING UNILATERAL
MEASURES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERNET USERS IN A PARTICULAR
GEOGRAPHIC REGION. THAT SAME GOVERNMENT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL
DOMAIN NAMES -- THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM WORLDWIDE.
THESE UNILATERAL RESTRICTIONS UNDERMINE THE UNIVERSAL ACCEPTED
MULTISTAKEHOLDER-BASED PRINCIPLES AND VALUES; THE TRUST, AND THE OPEN,
AND THE INTERCONNECTED CYBERSPACE, AND IS DISCREDITING THE EVOLUTION OF
EFFECTIVE INTERNET GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS, CREATING A SERIOUS THREAT OF
ITS FRAGMENTATION.
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION PROPOSES THAT ALL STAKEHOLDERS AND ALL COUNTRIES
REFRAIN FROM ANY ATTEMPTS TO USE BLOCKING OF THE INTERNET, INCLUDING THE
BLOCKING OF DOMAIN NAMES, WITH POLITICAL MOTIVATION AND MAKE EVERY
POSSIBLE EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE INTERNET USERS' RIGHTS.
THIS PROBLEM, IN MY OPINION, HIGHLIGHTS A POTENTIAL FOR FURTHER
DIFFICULTIES AND COMPLICATIONS. ONE THING WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND AT THIS
POINT IS WHETHER THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL WILL DEMONSTRATE ITSELF AS A
VIABLE MODEL CAPABLE OF PROTECTING THE VALUES THAT WE ARE PROCLAIMING.
SECONDLY, WE NOTE THE VACUUM THAT EXISTS IN THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE
AREA, BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THIS TOPIC IS OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE. WE
WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE IT REFLECTED IN THE GAC COMMUNIQUE.
|