Dear Sam,

Powerful message indeed. ICANN needs an outside international oversight
body which would, among other tasks, decidedly help in tackling these
strategic challenges.

But we (NCSG?) seem to agree on this oversight being reduced to an
office within ICANN. What would be the real difference between this
office and the ombudsman? My answer: the ombudsman is much cheaper.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 05/05/2015 10:59 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> I would like to add to David Post’s excellent comments in his Washington
> Post article on Internet governance. It is important that ICANN, or
> whoever covers the core DNS functions, not be forced into scope creep
> dealing with content, copyright, etc. However, there is a problem with
> the public, even the concerned public, in understanding who does what in
> Internet governance, and what should be done by whom. Somehow those
> concerned publics, including government policy makers, need a more
> sophisticated understanding of the appropriate venues for addressing DNS
> issues. Preferably we get good policy through awareness and education,
> and not by lessons learned from bad policy.
> 
> The 2014 dialogue around the .health and .doctor gTLD issues is
> instructive here. Both gTLDs made ICANN a lightning rod for domain name
> registration and content issues, issues to which ICANN could not
> respond. The issues were outside the ICANN remit and blocking the gTLDs
> would have been bad policy. However, the wider .health discussion within
> the global health constituency had little effect on either raising
> awareness about where the issues should be addressed, or why ICANN was
> the wrong target. Also, the recent WIPO decision on the trumpcard.com
> domain name dispute underscores how badly DNS copyright is addressed in
> other venues.
> 
> In the absence of a broader and deeper understanding of the appropriate
> venues for DNS issue resolution the Internet ecosystem is ripe for bad
> DNS policy at multiple levels. ICANN, or whoever covers the core DNA
> functions, will remain a target of misplaced pressure and this raises
> the risks of bad policy decisions made in the wrong venues.
> 
> As well, there is a rising tide of government policies, and some
> commercial or corporate efforts, that look to putting up more fences and
> gates in an Internet enclosure movement. Some of these initiatives (e.g.
> online gambling) are revenue driven, and others (e.g. internet.org) are
> clothed in public interest objectives. In addition, the multilateral
> trade-related treaties on the table have extensive scope for corporate
> driven Internet policy setting through case law from non-transparent
> dispute resolution.
> 
> The core challenge of the DNS content and intellectual property issue is
> not just keeping governments from forcing regulatory control on whoever
> manages the DNS system. It includes raising the capacity of the
> stakeholder communities to understand what principles are at stake, what
> issues are important, and what are the appropriate venues for dispute
> resolution? This is a challenge to stakeholders and their
> constituencies, and not just a challenge to ICANN.
> 
> Sam L.
> 
>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:49 PM, David Post <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>>     [Apologies for cross-posting]
>>
>>
>>     This really is starting to look, as Milton said, ominous - coupled
>>     with the pressure being placed upon ICANN to regulate message
>>     content, see
>>     http://www.internetcommerce.org/senate-judiciary-to-ip-czar/
>>
>>     my take on this is here:
>>
>>    
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/04/internet-governance-what-if-the-sky-really-is-falling/
>>
>>
>>     If the final proposal does not have real safeguards against
>>     ICANN's content-regulation powers, we're all in trouble.
>>