On Nov 21, 2013, at 6:21 AM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> 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.