Internet Freedom

[Dan Krimm]

A few comments interspersed:


At 4:09 AM -0700 3/20/11, Mohab Altlaity wrote:

>For ICANN, we can deal with that through GAC or something ..  we may push
>towards an agreement regarding this issue ..
>I believe that ICANN can help a lot in that ..
>
>ICANN can oppose some constrains on the registrars, and the registries ...
>
>i believe that ICANN can do a lot "if they wanted to :) "...


Be careful here.  There is no unified "they" at ICANN (other than perhaps
the staff, who really aren't supposed to be setting policy itself --
perhaps the Board, but there is variety of opinion there too, and the
advisory and supporting stakeholder organizations are supposed to be
developing the policies).

I would not look to GAC to resolve this in a way that you want, because
there are some governments that have different goals than you.  Because of
that, I would not look to give GAC any unilateral sort of power to make
such decisions.

Even in its "ideal" form, ICANN is not so much an *entity* to make law, but
rather a *place* for policy consensus to be reached among various parties.
But this ideal seemingly is not genuinely at hand, just yet.




>even if we have the agreements and the laws, some regime systems will
>[bypass] those laws .. of course the laws and the agreements are important
>to limit that from happening .. but, still it can happen ..


Indeed, individual national "regimes" will act in whatever they deem to be
their political self-interest, and we cannot always count on that being the
same as the public interest.




>From a technical perspective .. ICANN can encourage private sectors to
>work together finding a solution ...


ICANN in principle is supposed to be doing this, but the details as to how
this works are complicated, often incompletely specified, sometimes hidden
from view or inexplicably vetoed by staff, etc.  The protocol of how ICANN
"encourages" consensus is itself a matter of dispute.  This limits ICANN's
effectiveness in actually reaching consensus on matters of substance.




>For me as a computer engineer, i can start a search to find a technical
>solution for this issue, but i need a sponsor and a wide support ...


This matter of insufficient support/resources/sponsorship is not only an
issue with developing countries!  The non-profit/civil-society sector in
developed countries encounters the same issues relative to better-funded
commercial and intellectual property stakeholders.  We're all volunteers
here, but some people's volunteering is covered by paid employment, and
they have a structural advantage as a result.

ICANN has not solved this problem, and has barely even addressed it
outright (a few stipends available here and there, but it seems to me mere
"window dressing").  This is an abject oversight in the overall ICANN
paradigm, in my opinion.  It allows the "class divide" between the wealthy
and the non-wealthy to importantly shape the dynamics of seeking consensus
within ICANN's processes, such as they are.

The money gap exists not only between developed and developing countries,
but also within developed countries themselves, not least of which
increasingly in the United States over the last few decades.  This is a
sore spot in American domestic politics, and is particularly acute since
the last election.  We have not resolved this "at home" and it has been
getting worse since the 80s.

I don't have any sort of ready answer to this problem.  (If I did, I'd be
famous...)  It is important to understand that there is no easy solution to
this, and to take it into account as status quo.




>The social communities can fight for the Internet freedom .. but if they
>are dealing with a regime systems they will not be enough to end that!
>
>So, I believe, we need to start pushing towards an agreement between all
>the countries "we may ask for the UN or ITU help" ...
>In the same time, gather some private sectors to start a research to find
>a technical solution ..


My sense is that an agreement between all the countries (that achieves the
goals of the "underclass") is not likely any time soon (partly because
countries with different goals will likely have enough veto power to
prevent it).  I'm not saying not to try, but don't get your hopes and
expectations up too high.  It will be enough of a victory simply to prevent
a bad agreement between all the countries from coming to pass, even better
to make very small steps that progress toward useful goals.  Beyond that, I
don't see it happening in the foreseeable future.

The technical approach is of course one of the prime areas of expertise
among many of those who do participate in ICANN's policy-making processes,
and those who share the goals of empowering the underclass might well share
ideas and support among themselves, and look for ways to broaden the
awareness of the issues and the information about how one might go about
addressing them technologically.

This might be more likely to occur within particular constituencies
(non-commercial and consumer, and at-large) than in the greater
policy-making arena at ICANN, if ICANN is to be involved at all.  However I
don't expect to see much if any of this issuing from ICANN as consensus
policy.

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.