I agree with Edward's proposed text, not much that I could add to it. ICANN has a well defined duty and getting involved in content debates would be more than dangerous. However, ICANN can help in tackling the cyber-criminality if such is done by abusing the domain name space. Some of the cyber-attacks are using the domain name space and can create a lot of damage to the consumers (private and business). In this perspective I'm convinced ICANN has a collaborative task and can not just stand aside. Rudi Vansnick Member NPOC policy committee Op 22-apr-2013, om 19:00 heeft Alain Berranger het volgende geschreven: > Thanks for your work David. > > I agree with Edward's most interesting development. Does Rudi have anything to say about that? > > Alain > > On Monday, April 22, 2013, Edward Morris wrote: > Thanks for your work David. > > Regardless of ICANN's public statements or strategic plans, I am not sure ICANN can be in accordance with customary International Humanitarian Law with the statement "ICANN does not have a role in the use of the Internet related to cyber-espionage and cyber-war" (page 7). I am equally not sure ICANN is not in accordance with customary International Humanitarian Law with that statement and I remain open to arguments as to whether ICANN should be involved in these issues or could be commanded by IG treaty or agreement to exercise responsibilities thereof. > > These are not simple issues. ICANN is a unique organisation that does not neatly fit into any typical, comfortable structure. IHL, of course, is state centric in terms of responsibility but ICANN on one, fairly superficial level, is almost supreme being like in it's coordination of the Internet. Cyber-espoinage, no problem, ICANN is not involved. However, imagine a situation where there are massive cyber attacks on civilian infrastructures in third countries by state actors that ICANN could operationally prevent. Mass civilian death, mass civilian injury, mass destruction of property and infrastructure. Mass death of noncommercial users, mass injury of noncommercial users, mass loss of property of noncommercial users. Do we truly represent these people with a position of "not our problem?" > > ICANN is a non state actor but it's operational coordination abilities allow those who want, and they exist, to inpune state responsibility to it through a number of intellectual gymnastics involving the definition of territory and control. I doubt I'll ever buy into those arguments and I don't think they'll ever be majority opinion. I could be wrong. I am concerned, though, with rules 139 (Respect for IHL), 149 (Responsibility for Violations of IHL) and 161 (International Cooperation in Criminal Proceedings) of the ICRC's Study on Customary International Law. As of today ICANN as a non state actor does not have any responsibility under these rules, but as more people examine the nature of ICANN, the ever changing role of the GAC, the uniqueness of ICANN as it is constructed, I can conceive of a consensus being developed in the IHL community that extends responsibility under these rules to ICANN as a unique non state actor. It won't happen tomorrow, it won't happen next year, but it may happen, and I don't want to get myself locked into a position today that prevents me from having options several years down the road. > > For those who haven't read it the Tallinn Manual http://www.ccdcoe.org/249.html is an exceptional first effort at porting IHL into the cyber arena. Mike Schmitt did an exceptional job at coordinating input from some pretty diverse people in creating the guidance, and from my perspective they did a near perfect job for what it is. ICANN is not mentioned in the Manual. However at cocktail discussions in Estonia last year with some of those involved in the project, there was an interest in thinking about ICANN and where it fit into all of this, post Manual production. Interest varied, many did not understand how ICANN was constituted ( at CyCon's public sessions it was described, variably, as an NGO, an IGO, but never as a unique MS organisation), but as much as ICANN would like everyone to forget about it in this context it simply is not going to happen. The salience of cyberwar as an issue, for reasons often having to do more with private economic interests than security, is going nowhere but up and there will be some response on an international level that will impact or involve ICANN, desired or not. > > As we exist in 2013 I'm happy to sign off on David's statement. I do so, though, reserving the right to change my view as events and thoughts develop and change regarding cyberwar activities. That ICANN should not be involved in content, obvious. That we do not want to extend it's competence to cybercrime and cyberespionage, of course. Certain forms of cyberwar, though, are different in that in some areas it isn't something an entity can or should be able to opt out of. I'm just not personally sure today where ICANN does or should fit into all of this. It would be a lot easier if we had competing private Internets but until we do I have questions in this area and reserve the right to come back in a few years time with views that are different than what I can accept today. These are complicated issues and I'm not sure best handled with a bumper sticker like perspective. Then again... > > > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Brenden Kuerbis <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > +1, thanks David. Minor typo in last para, "explicit acknowledge[ment]..." > > --------------------------------------- > Brenden Kuerbis > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:21 AM, David Cake <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > This document has been out for public comment. http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06mar13-en.htm > > I've missed the deadline on public comment for this by a day or two, but I'd still like to see if we can make a small comment on it if we can. > Here is my draft comment - if NCSG could approve it (quickly), that would be great, otherwise I'll just put it in as a personal comment. > Any additions or disagreement? > > Regards > David > > ---------- > The regular update of the Security, Stability and Resiliency Framework is a very important part of ICANNs SSR function, as attested by its inclusion in the Affirmation of Commitments. > > NCSG notes the significant effort involved in preparing the FY13 Security, Stability and Resiliency Plan, and the progress towards implementing the recommendations of the Security, Stability and Resiliency Review Team Report. While work so far has seen the completion of only some recommendations, we note planning and progress has been made for all the recommendations, and we appreciate the commitment to full implementation. > > > NCSG supports the definition of ICANNs SSR role and remit. In particular, NCSG values the acknowledgement of areas that lie outside ICANNs remit, and NCSG strongly agrees that ICANNs role does not include law enforcement or determining what constitutes illicit conduct. > > NCSG welcomes the explicit acknowledge of the necessity of a continued multistakeholder approach to security, and notes the inclusion of civil society within all discussions of the Internet and security ecosystem, and particularly welcomes the inclusion of engagement with civil society on privacy and free expression issues as a commitment for FY14. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > > > AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ > Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération. > > CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE > This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. > >