Should governments develop National regulations rather than lobbying within multistakeholder processes like ICANNs? Best Alice http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130514_icann_and_gac_a_new_role_needed/ Syracuse University professor Milton Mueller published a blog <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/05/13/will-the-gac-go-away-if-the-board-doesnt-follow-its-advice/> under the title "Will the GAC go away if the Board doesn't follow its advice?". Having been to a number of (very limited) ICANN meetings on behalf of law enforcement cooperation, I would like to share a few --- probably thought provoking --- observations. The GAC should not leave ICANN but it may be more efficient if it's role changed and it's efforts were aimed at a different form of output. *Governments and direct influence* I know that I should explain here what ICANN and the GAC is, but this article is only of interest if you already have some background. Over the past few years the role of the GAC, Government Advisory Board, within ICANN, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, seems to have changed. Having started as an advisory board, giving an advice to the ICANN board, which can be ignored or only taken to heed in parts, GAC operates more forceful. From advice to orders it seems. As ICANN is multi stakeholder all the way and, as most internet related organs work, bottom up and through consensus only. Perhaps the most stifling form of democracy, but democracy it is. Show up or participate remotely and your voice is heard. In this environment governments are seeking attention for their needs and concerns over the internet. Shouldn't they ask themselves: Is this the correct place to have direct influence? *Why are governments concerned?* The internet as we know it was created outside the view and influence of governments and by the time of the commercial boom, let's say, since 1998, most western countries had liberalised the telecommunication markets. If anything was regulated it was the old telephony and access fees, not the internet. With the rise of commercial opportunities also other opportunities arose for criminal actors, hacktivists, activists, free speech advocates, state actors, etc. The results of these opportunities concern governments (of all sorts, for different reasons) as all sorts of national interest from public safety to economic are at stake. By the time governments seriously started to look around for enforcement matters and regulations they faced a global challenge. Hence the drive to have more say on internet related policy discussions. Hence more interest in ICANN, ITU, IGF, etc., but mostly ICANN it seems. But again is ICANN the right places to have direct influence? *GAC and ICANN* What also surprises me, is that governments put all this effort into ICANN. In the end this organisation handles only one aspect of what makes the internet work. Is this because it is the best organised one? There are so much more topics and equally important ones, where there seems less involvement. The RIRs, technical internet bodies, CERT meetings, etc., are less government attended. So again is ICANN the right place to have influence? *National laws* If a government wants real influence it has to write law that is binding within its own country. It would be advisable that (several) governments coordinate on laws and regulations, e.g. the E.U., perhaps even beyond. The three times a year GAC meeting could be great for coordination. Why go national? The internet is only as stateless as the first cable coming on/into land somewhere. Everything behind that is within a nation state. This is where influence starts or could start should a government wish to have influence. Let's say that a government wants a ruling on: 1) a validation of (a domain name registration by) registrars and registries and resellers. It can lobby with ICANN and hope for self-regulation or it can write it in the national law; 2) abused IP addresses revocation. It can lobby with the RIRs (Regional Internet Registries) or write a regulation into national law; 3) revocation of abused domain names? Idem; 4) National organisations implementing best practices developed at the IETF, it can lobby there or oblige national organisations, e.g. ISPs, to respond and implement within six months through national law; 5) etc., etc., etc. A national regulation, whether directly enforced or through mandatory self-regulation, would be much more effective from a government's perspective than lobbying within multi-stakeholder groups and hope for the best. Does this mean governments have to leave these groups? *A new role* I'm not claiming that governments should leave ICANN. I'm not even propagating regulatory regimes here. To the contrary, but I do think the present effort could be bettered. Governments should use ICANN meetings, and all others around the internet, to understand which topics are important, what issues are at stake, inform themselves as good as possible from all sides by asking all the right questions and to have a true understand of it all. From this understanding they can build their policies, using all that acquired information. Policy that on the one hand aids the development of the internet and the economy while on the other assists in making it more secure. There is a fine line to walk here, but a line governments need to walk to be most effective on both sides. And, without the aid of industry it will never come about. *Conclusion* So, governments, lay down your ears and give your advice, but then go home and act on it in the best way possible. Preferably coordinated. * *
Rather, what mechanisms should have in place to ensure we coordinate our engagements with the various Internet Governance processes? best Alice
Should governments develop National regulations rather than lobbying within multistakeholder processes like ICANNs?
Best Alice
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130514_icann_and_gac_a_new_role_needed/
Syracuse University professor Milton Mueller published a blog <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/05/13/will-the-gac-go-away-if-the-board-doesnt-follow-its-advice/> under the title "Will the GAC go away if the Board doesn't follow its advice?". Having been to a number of (very limited) ICANN meetings on behalf of law enforcement cooperation, I would like to share a few --- probably thought provoking --- observations. The GAC should not leave ICANN but it may be more efficient if it's role changed and it's efforts were aimed at a different form of output.
*Governments and direct influence*
I know that I should explain here what ICANN and the GAC is, but this article is only of interest if you already have some background.
Over the past few years the role of the GAC, Government Advisory Board, within ICANN, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, seems to have changed. Having started as an advisory board, giving an advice to the ICANN board, which can be ignored or only taken to heed in parts, GAC operates more forceful. From advice to orders it seems.
As ICANN is multi stakeholder all the way and, as most internet related organs work, bottom up and through consensus only. Perhaps the most stifling form of democracy, but democracy it is. Show up or participate remotely and your voice is heard.
In this environment governments are seeking attention for their needs and concerns over the internet. Shouldn't they ask themselves: Is this the correct place to have direct influence?
*Why are governments concerned?*
The internet as we know it was created outside the view and influence of governments and by the time of the commercial boom, let's say, since 1998, most western countries had liberalised the telecommunication markets. If anything was regulated it was the old telephony and access fees, not the internet.
With the rise of commercial opportunities also other opportunities arose for criminal actors, hacktivists, activists, free speech advocates, state actors, etc. The results of these opportunities concern governments (of all sorts, for different reasons) as all sorts of national interest from public safety to economic are at stake. By the time governments seriously started to look around for enforcement matters and regulations they faced a global challenge. Hence the drive to have more say on internet related policy discussions. Hence more interest in ICANN, ITU, IGF, etc., but mostly ICANN it seems. But again is ICANN the right places to have direct influence?
*GAC and ICANN*
What also surprises me, is that governments put all this effort into ICANN. In the end this organisation handles only one aspect of what makes the internet work. Is this because it is the best organised one? There are so much more topics and equally important ones, where there seems less involvement. The RIRs, technical internet bodies, CERT meetings, etc., are less government attended. So again is ICANN the right place to have influence?
*National laws*
If a government wants real influence it has to write law that is binding within its own country. It would be advisable that (several) governments coordinate on laws and regulations, e.g. the E.U., perhaps even beyond. The three times a year GAC meeting could be great for coordination. Why go national?
The internet is only as stateless as the first cable coming on/into land somewhere. Everything behind that is within a nation state. This is where influence starts or could start should a government wish to have influence.
Let's say that a government wants a ruling on:
1) a validation of (a domain name registration by) registrars and registries and resellers. It can lobby with ICANN and hope for self-regulation or it can write it in the national law;
2) abused IP addresses revocation. It can lobby with the RIRs (Regional Internet Registries) or write a regulation into national law;
3) revocation of abused domain names? Idem;
4) National organisations implementing best practices developed at the IETF, it can lobby there or oblige national organisations, e.g. ISPs, to respond and implement within six months through national law;
5) etc., etc., etc.
A national regulation, whether directly enforced or through mandatory self-regulation, would be much more effective from a government's perspective than lobbying within multi-stakeholder groups and hope for the best. Does this mean governments have to leave these groups?
*A new role*
I'm not claiming that governments should leave ICANN. I'm not even propagating regulatory regimes here. To the contrary, but I do think the present effort could be bettered. Governments should use ICANN meetings, and all others around the internet, to understand which topics are important, what issues are at stake, inform themselves as good as possible from all sides by asking all the right questions and to have a true understand of it all. From this understanding they can build their policies, using all that acquired information.
Policy that on the one hand aids the development of the internet and the economy while on the other assists in making it more secure. There is a fine line to walk here, but a line governments need to walk to be most effective on both sides. And, without the aid of industry it will never come about.
*Conclusion*
So, governments, lay down your ears and give your advice, but then go home and act on it in the best way possible. Preferably coordinated.
* *
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
Thought provoking article Alice. Thanks for sharing. It seems to me that everywhere we look the Multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance is under attack. The article seems to suggest ( I hope not true) that the GAC has now morphed into a sort of Command &Control Mechanism within the ICANN ecosystem. Is this true? How can the different players in the Internet Ecosystem ensure that we continue to have an even playing field between governments and non government players? Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd +254 713 601113 "The future belongs to him who knows how to wait." - Russian Proverb Sent from my iPad On May 14, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@apc.org> wrote:
Rather, what mechanisms should have in place to ensure we coordinate our engagements with the various Internet Governance processes?
best Alice
Should governments develop National regulations rather than lobbying within multistakeholder processes like ICANNs?
Best Alice
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130514_icann_and_gac_a_new_role_needed/
Syracuse University professor Milton Mueller published a blog under the title "Will the GAC go away if the Board doesn't follow its advice?". Having been to a number of (very limited) ICANN meetings on behalf of law enforcement cooperation, I would like to share a few — probably thought provoking — observations. The GAC should not leave ICANN but it may be more efficient if it's role changed and it's efforts were aimed at a different form of output. Governments and direct influence
I know that I should explain here what ICANN and the GAC is, but this article is only of interest if you already have some background.
Over the past few years the role of the GAC, Government Advisory Board, within ICANN, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, seems to have changed. Having started as an advisory board, giving an advice to the ICANN board, which can be ignored or only taken to heed in parts, GAC operates more forceful. From advice to orders it seems.
As ICANN is multi stakeholder all the way and, as most internet related organs work, bottom up and through consensus only. Perhaps the most stifling form of democracy, but democracy it is. Show up or participate remotely and your voice is heard.
In this environment governments are seeking attention for their needs and concerns over the internet. Shouldn't they ask themselves: Is this the correct place to have direct influence?
Why are governments concerned?
The internet as we know it was created outside the view and influence of governments and by the time of the commercial boom, let's say, since 1998, most western countries had liberalised the telecommunication markets. If anything was regulated it was the old telephony and access fees, not the internet.
With the rise of commercial opportunities also other opportunities arose for criminal actors, hacktivists, activists, free speech advocates, state actors, etc. The results of these opportunities concern governments (of all sorts, for different reasons) as all sorts of national interest from public safety to economic are at stake. By the time governments seriously started to look around for enforcement matters and regulations they faced a global challenge. Hence the drive to have more say on internet related policy discussions. Hence more interest in ICANN, ITU, IGF, etc., but mostly ICANN it seems. But again is ICANN the right places to have direct influence?
GAC and ICANN
What also surprises me, is that governments put all this effort into ICANN. In the end this organisation handles only one aspect of what makes the internet work. Is this because it is the best organised one? There are so much more topics and equally important ones, where there seems less involvement. The RIRs, technical internet bodies, CERT meetings, etc., are less government attended. So again is ICANN the right place to have influence?
National laws
If a government wants real influence it has to write law that is binding within its own country. It would be advisable that (several) governments coordinate on laws and regulations, e.g. the E.U., perhaps even beyond. The three times a year GAC meeting could be great for coordination. Why go national?
The internet is only as stateless as the first cable coming on/into land somewhere. Everything behind that is within a nation state. This is where influence starts or could start should a government wish to have influence.
Let's say that a government wants a ruling on:
1) a validation of (a domain name registration by) registrars and registries and resellers. It can lobby with ICANN and hope for self-regulation or it can write it in the national law;
2) abused IP addresses revocation. It can lobby with the RIRs (Regional Internet Registries) or write a regulation into national law;
3) revocation of abused domain names? Idem;
4) National organisations implementing best practices developed at the IETF, it can lobby there or oblige national organisations, e.g. ISPs, to respond and implement within six months through national law;
5) etc., etc., etc.
A national regulation, whether directly enforced or through mandatory self-regulation, would be much more effective from a government's perspective than lobbying within multi-stakeholder groups and hope for the best. Does this mean governments have to leave these groups?
A new role
I'm not claiming that governments should leave ICANN. I'm not even propagating regulatory regimes here. To the contrary, but I do think the present effort could be bettered. Governments should use ICANN meetings, and all others around the internet, to understand which topics are important, what issues are at stake, inform themselves as good as possible from all sides by asking all the right questions and to have a true understand of it all. From this understanding they can build their policies, using all that acquired information.
Policy that on the one hand aids the development of the internet and the economy while on the other assists in making it more secure. There is a fine line to walk here, but a line governments need to walk to be most effective on both sides. And, without the aid of industry it will never come about.
Conclusion
So, governments, lay down your ears and give your advice, but then go home and act on it in the best way possible. Preferably coordinated.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:
Thought provoking article Alice. Thanks for sharing.
It seems to me that everywhere we look the Multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance is under attack. The article seems to suggest ( I hope not true) that the GAC has now morphed into a sort of Command &Control Mechanism within the ICANN ecosystem. Is this true?
Some in the GAC would like this to be the case. Even some of the local GAC folks.
How can the different players in the Internet Ecosystem ensure that we continue to have an even playing field between governments and non government players?
The African Network Information Centre has a Governmental Working Group, but it has zero policy making authority. Instead, government folks participate in policy making with all having an equal voice...it's "multi-equal stakeholderism" That is one concrete example. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
McTim, Where "local GAC folks" means your native US? or Africa? or where? ________________________________ From: McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> To: ict.researcher@yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [kictanet] New role for ICANN's GAC? On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:
Thought provoking article Alice. Thanks for sharing.
It seems to me that everywhere we look the Multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance is under attack. The article seems to suggest ( I hope not true) that the GAC has now morphed into a sort of Command &Control Mechanism within the ICANN ecosystem. Is this true?
Some in the GAC would like this to be the case. Even some of the local GAC folks.
How can the different players in the Internet Ecosystem ensure that we continue to have an even playing field between governments and non government players?
The African Network Information Centre has a Governmental Working Group, but it has zero policy making authority. Instead, government folks participate in policy making with all having an equal voice...it's "multi-equal stakeholderism" That is one concrete example. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ict.researcher%40yahoo... The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:59 PM, ICT Researcher <ict.researcher@yahoo.com> wrote:
McTim,
Where "local GAC folks" means your native US? or Africa? or where?
I meant local to Kenya. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Ali good day, Its definitely thought provoking, the issue is the GAC within the multi stake holder process of ICANN seem not to unilaterally accept the process that they are equal players as an advisory body not an "Authority", personally am not referring to all GAC members or countries but some seem to have the attitude of "Command &Control Mechanism" as you stated. The important thing is how do you win them over based on the multi stake holder process that GAC feels comfortable that these processes are done for the common good not for certain interest groups of X , Y or Z above all its a trust thing and I think the more dialogue and adherence to the key tenets of multi stake holder model at all levels of ICANN the more GAC members will adhere and follow the process. Poncelet On 14 May 2013 17:20, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:
Thought provoking article Alice. Thanks for sharing.
It seems to me that everywhere we look the Multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance is under attack. The article seems to suggest ( I hope not true) that the GAC has now morphed into a sort of Command &Control Mechanism within the ICANN ecosystem. Is this true?
How can the different players in the Internet Ecosystem ensure that we continue to have an even playing field between governments and non government players?
Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd
+254 713 601113
"The future belongs to him who knows how to wait." - Russian Proverb
Sent from my iPad
On May 14, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@apc.org> wrote:
Rather, what mechanisms should have in place to ensure we coordinate our engagements with the various Internet Governance processes?
best Alice
Should governments develop National regulations rather than lobbying within multistakeholder processes like ICANNs?
Best Alice
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130514_icann_and_gac_a_new_role_needed/
Syracuse University professor Milton Mueller published a blog<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/05/13/will-the-gac-go-away-if-the-board-doesnt-follow-its-advice/>under the title "Will the GAC go away if the Board doesn't follow its advice?". Having been to a number of (very limited) ICANN meetings on behalf of law enforcement cooperation, I would like to share a few — probably thought provoking — observations. The GAC should not leave ICANN but it may be more efficient if it's role changed and it's efforts were aimed at a different form of output.
*Governments and direct influence*
I know that I should explain here what ICANN and the GAC is, but this article is only of interest if you already have some background.
Over the past few years the role of the GAC, Government Advisory Board, within ICANN, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, seems to have changed. Having started as an advisory board, giving an advice to the ICANN board, which can be ignored or only taken to heed in parts, GAC operates more forceful. From advice to orders it seems.
As ICANN is multi stakeholder all the way and, as most internet related organs work, bottom up and through consensus only. Perhaps the most stifling form of democracy, but democracy it is. Show up or participate remotely and your voice is heard.
In this environment governments are seeking attention for their needs and concerns over the internet. Shouldn't they ask themselves: Is this the correct place to have direct influence?
*Why are governments concerned?*
The internet as we know it was created outside the view and influence of governments and by the time of the commercial boom, let's say, since 1998, most western countries had liberalised the telecommunication markets. If anything was regulated it was the old telephony and access fees, not the internet.
With the rise of commercial opportunities also other opportunities arose for criminal actors, hacktivists, activists, free speech advocates, state actors, etc. The results of these opportunities concern governments (of all sorts, for different reasons) as all sorts of national interest from public safety to economic are at stake. By the time governments seriously started to look around for enforcement matters and regulations they faced a global challenge. Hence the drive to have more say on internet related policy discussions. Hence more interest in ICANN, ITU, IGF, etc., but mostly ICANN it seems. But again is ICANN the right places to have direct influence?
*GAC and ICANN*
What also surprises me, is that governments put all this effort into ICANN. In the end this organisation handles only one aspect of what makes the internet work. Is this because it is the best organised one? There are so much more topics and equally important ones, where there seems less involvement. The RIRs, technical internet bodies, CERT meetings, etc., are less government attended. So again is ICANN the right place to have influence?
*National laws*
If a government wants real influence it has to write law that is binding within its own country. It would be advisable that (several) governments coordinate on laws and regulations, e.g. the E.U., perhaps even beyond. The three times a year GAC meeting could be great for coordination. Why go national?
The internet is only as stateless as the first cable coming on/into land somewhere. Everything behind that is within a nation state. This is where influence starts or could start should a government wish to have influence.
Let's say that a government wants a ruling on:
1) a validation of (a domain name registration by) registrars and registries and resellers. It can lobby with ICANN and hope for self-regulation or it can write it in the national law;
2) abused IP addresses revocation. It can lobby with the RIRs (Regional Internet Registries) or write a regulation into national law;
3) revocation of abused domain names? Idem;
4) National organisations implementing best practices developed at the IETF, it can lobby there or oblige national organisations, e.g. ISPs, to respond and implement within six months through national law;
5) etc., etc., etc.
A national regulation, whether directly enforced or through mandatory self-regulation, would be much more effective from a government's perspective than lobbying within multi-stakeholder groups and hope for the best. Does this mean governments have to leave these groups?
*A new role*
I'm not claiming that governments should leave ICANN. I'm not even propagating regulatory regimes here. To the contrary, but I do think the present effort could be bettered. Governments should use ICANN meetings, and all others around the internet, to understand which topics are important, what issues are at stake, inform themselves as good as possible from all sides by asking all the right questions and to have a true understand of it all. From this understanding they can build their policies, using all that acquired information.
Policy that on the one hand aids the development of the internet and the economy while on the other assists in making it more secure. There is a fine line to walk here, but a line governments need to walk to be most effective on both sides. And, without the aid of industry it will never come about.
*Conclusion*
So, governments, lay down your ears and give your advice, but then go home and act on it in the best way possible. Preferably coordinated.
* *
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing listkictanet@lists.kictanet.or.kehttps://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pileleji%40ymca.gm
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm www.waigf.org www.aficta.org www.itag.gm www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org * *
Poncelet Thanks. My opinion is that this Command & Control thought process is a very recent phenomenon in the ICANN process. I stand corrected but it can be traced to the time when governments (especially totalitarian ones) woke up one day and realized oops! We are controlling a toothless and irrelevant channel of communication (read National Telcos), This war against Internet Freedom and Multi-Stakeholderism is multifaceted and complex - from the new ITRs introduced at WCIT12 to agitation of changing the way ICANN is governed to attacks on how ccTLDs are structured. Case in point:- Do you know that the new Kenya ICT Act has fundamentally changed the regulatory environment of KeNIC? KeNIC now has to be licensed by CCK and in fact if it is not then it is operating illegally? Where as before CCK was just but one of the stakeholders now it is the Big Cajuna in the real sense of the word. Forums like this give voice to an alternative opinion and work toward checking unfettered Government influence. In this I'm a strong proponent of keeping the playing field as even as possible and ensuring that Governments the world over as much as they have (of course not all do) the mandate of the people they DONOT become overbearing and trample upon the very rights they are sworn to protect. Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd +254 713 601113 "The future belongs to him who knows how to wait." - Russian Proverb Sent from my iPad On May 14, 2013, at 9:06 PM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji@ymca.gm> wrote:
Ali good day,
Its definitely thought provoking, the issue is the GAC within the multi stake holder process of ICANN seem not to unilaterally accept the process that they are equal players as an advisory body not an "Authority", personally am not referring to all GAC members or countries but some seem to have the attitude of "Command &Control Mechanism" as you stated.
The important thing is how do you win them over based on the multi stake holder process that GAC feels comfortable that these processes are done for the common good not for certain interest groups of X , Y or Z above all its a trust thing and I think the more dialogue and adherence to the key tenets of multi stake holder model at all levels of ICANN the more GAC members will adhere and follow the process.
Poncelet
On 14 May 2013 17:20, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:
Thought provoking article Alice. Thanks for sharing.
It seems to me that everywhere we look the Multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance is under attack. The article seems to suggest ( I hope not true) that the GAC has now morphed into a sort of Command &Control Mechanism within the ICANN ecosystem. Is this true?
How can the different players in the Internet Ecosystem ensure that we continue to have an even playing field between governments and non government players?
Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd
+254 713 601113
"The future belongs to him who knows how to wait." - Russian Proverb
Sent from my iPad
On May 14, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@apc.org> wrote:
Rather, what mechanisms should have in place to ensure we coordinate our engagements with the various Internet Governance processes?
best Alice
Should governments develop National regulations rather than lobbying within multistakeholder processes like ICANNs?
Best Alice
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130514_icann_and_gac_a_new_role_needed/
Syracuse University professor Milton Mueller published a blog under the title "Will the GAC go away if the Board doesn't follow its advice?". Having been to a number of (very limited) ICANN meetings on behalf of law enforcement cooperation, I would like to share a few — probably thought provoking — observations. The GAC should not leave ICANN but it may be more efficient if it's role changed and it's efforts were aimed at a different form of output. Governments and direct influence
I know that I should explain here what ICANN and the GAC is, but this article is only of interest if you already have some background.
Over the past few years the role of the GAC, Government Advisory Board, within ICANN, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, seems to have changed. Having started as an advisory board, giving an advice to the ICANN board, which can be ignored or only taken to heed in parts, GAC operates more forceful. From advice to orders it seems.
As ICANN is multi stakeholder all the way and, as most internet related organs work, bottom up and through consensus only. Perhaps the most stifling form of democracy, but democracy it is. Show up or participate remotely and your voice is heard.
In this environment governments are seeking attention for their needs and concerns over the internet. Shouldn't they ask themselves: Is this the correct place to have direct influence?
Why are governments concerned?
The internet as we know it was created outside the view and influence of governments and by the time of the commercial boom, let's say, since 1998, most western countries had liberalised the telecommunication markets. If anything was regulated it was the old telephony and access fees, not the internet.
With the rise of commercial opportunities also other opportunities arose for criminal actors, hacktivists, activists, free speech advocates, state actors, etc. The results of these opportunities concern governments (of all sorts, for different reasons) as all sorts of national interest from public safety to economic are at stake. By the time governments seriously started to look around for enforcement matters and regulations they faced a global challenge. Hence the drive to have more say on internet related policy discussions. Hence more interest in ICANN, ITU, IGF, etc., but mostly ICANN it seems. But again is ICANN the right places to have direct influence?
GAC and ICANN
What also surprises me, is that governments put all this effort into ICANN. In the end this organisation handles only one aspect of what makes the internet work. Is this because it is the best organised one? There are so much more topics and equally important ones, where there seems less involvement. The RIRs, technical internet bodies, CERT meetings, etc., are less government attended. So again is ICANN the right place to have influence?
National laws
If a government wants real influence it has to write law that is binding within its own country. It would be advisable that (several) governments coordinate on laws and regulations, e.g. the E.U., perhaps even beyond. The three times a year GAC meeting could be great for coordination. Why go national?
The internet is only as stateless as the first cable coming on/into land somewhere. Everything behind that is within a nation state. This is where influence starts or could start should a government wish to have influence.
Let's say that a government wants a ruling on:
1) a validation of (a domain name registration by) registrars and registries and resellers. It can lobby with ICANN and hope for self-regulation or it can write it in the national law;
2) abused IP addresses revocation. It can lobby with the RIRs (Regional Internet Registries) or write a regulation into national law;
3) revocation of abused domain names? Idem;
4) National organisations implementing best practices developed at the IETF, it can lobby there or oblige national organisations, e.g. ISPs, to respond and implement within six months through national law;
5) etc., etc., etc.
A national regulation, whether directly enforced or through mandatory self-regulation, would be much more effective from a government's perspective than lobbying within multi-stakeholder groups and hope for the best. Does this mean governments have to leave these groups?
A new role
I'm not claiming that governments should leave ICANN. I'm not even propagating regulatory regimes here. To the contrary, but I do think the present effort could be bettered. Governments should use ICANN meetings, and all others around the internet, to understand which topics are important, what issues are at stake, inform themselves as good as possible from all sides by asking all the right questions and to have a true understand of it all. From this understanding they can build their policies, using all that acquired information.
Policy that on the one hand aids the development of the internet and the economy while on the other assists in making it more secure. There is a fine line to walk here, but a line governments need to walk to be most effective on both sides. And, without the aid of industry it will never come about.
Conclusion
So, governments, lay down your ears and give your advice, but then go home and act on it in the best way possible. Preferably coordinated.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pileleji%40ymca.gm
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd www.ymca.gm www.waigf.org www.aficta.org www.itag.gm www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 www.diplointernetgovernance.org
Alice, colleagues, I think the term GAC is self explanatory and should define the parameters within which it operates. That said i am reminded of the words of the Ugandan State Minister in Addis Ababa during the ICANN Multistakeholder meeting that the Government is a creature. It has feelings and senses, this may lend credence to possible transformations the GAC may undergo as it tries to adapt to the changing times. Again a Lion remains a Lion even if it is domesticated and should be treated as such, Governments are the same all over, they will always seek to govern, the key is to define engagement bearing in mind the role of governments which leans towards legal frameworks and policy interventions. Thank you Best Regards On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji@ymca.gm> wrote:
Ali good day,
Its definitely thought provoking, the issue is the GAC within the multi stake holder process of ICANN seem not to unilaterally accept the process that they are equal players as an advisory body not an "Authority", personally am not referring to all GAC members or countries but some seem to have the attitude of "Command &Control Mechanism" as you stated.
The important thing is how do you win them over based on the multi stake holder process that GAC feels comfortable that these processes are done for the common good not for certain interest groups of X , Y or Z above all its a trust thing and I think the more dialogue and adherence to the key tenets of multi stake holder model at all levels of ICANN the more GAC members will adhere and follow the process.
Poncelet
On 14 May 2013 17:20, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:
Thought provoking article Alice. Thanks for sharing.
It seems to me that everywhere we look the Multi-stakeholder process of Internet governance is under attack. The article seems to suggest ( I hope not true) that the GAC has now morphed into a sort of Command &Control Mechanism within the ICANN ecosystem. Is this true?
How can the different players in the Internet Ecosystem ensure that we continue to have an even playing field between governments and non government players?
Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd
+254 713 601113
"The future belongs to him who knows how to wait." - Russian Proverb
Sent from my iPad
On May 14, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@apc.org> wrote:
Rather, what mechanisms should have in place to ensure we coordinate our engagements with the various Internet Governance processes?
best Alice
Should governments develop National regulations rather than lobbying within multistakeholder processes like ICANNs?
Best Alice
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130514_icann_and_gac_a_new_role_needed/
Syracuse University professor Milton Mueller published a blog<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/05/13/will-the-gac-go-away-if-the-board-doesnt-follow-its-advice/>under the title "Will the GAC go away if the Board doesn't follow its advice?". Having been to a number of (very limited) ICANN meetings on behalf of law enforcement cooperation, I would like to share a few — probably thought provoking — observations. The GAC should not leave ICANN but it may be more efficient if it's role changed and it's efforts were aimed at a different form of output.
*Governments and direct influence*
I know that I should explain here what ICANN and the GAC is, but this article is only of interest if you already have some background.
Over the past few years the role of the GAC, Government Advisory Board, within ICANN, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, seems to have changed. Having started as an advisory board, giving an advice to the ICANN board, which can be ignored or only taken to heed in parts, GAC operates more forceful. From advice to orders it seems.
As ICANN is multi stakeholder all the way and, as most internet related organs work, bottom up and through consensus only. Perhaps the most stifling form of democracy, but democracy it is. Show up or participate remotely and your voice is heard.
In this environment governments are seeking attention for their needs and concerns over the internet. Shouldn't they ask themselves: Is this the correct place to have direct influence?
*Why are governments concerned?*
The internet as we know it was created outside the view and influence of governments and by the time of the commercial boom, let's say, since 1998, most western countries had liberalised the telecommunication markets. If anything was regulated it was the old telephony and access fees, not the internet.
With the rise of commercial opportunities also other opportunities arose for criminal actors, hacktivists, activists, free speech advocates, state actors, etc. The results of these opportunities concern governments (of all sorts, for different reasons) as all sorts of national interest from public safety to economic are at stake. By the time governments seriously started to look around for enforcement matters and regulations they faced a global challenge. Hence the drive to have more say on internet related policy discussions. Hence more interest in ICANN, ITU, IGF, etc., but mostly ICANN it seems. But again is ICANN the right places to have direct influence?
*GAC and ICANN*
What also surprises me, is that governments put all this effort into ICANN. In the end this organisation handles only one aspect of what makes the internet work. Is this because it is the best organised one? There are so much more topics and equally important ones, where there seems less involvement. The RIRs, technical internet bodies, CERT meetings, etc., are less government attended. So again is ICANN the right place to have influence?
*National laws*
If a government wants real influence it has to write law that is binding within its own country. It would be advisable that (several) governments coordinate on laws and regulations, e.g. the E.U., perhaps even beyond. The three times a year GAC meeting could be great for coordination. Why go national?
The internet is only as stateless as the first cable coming on/into land somewhere. Everything behind that is within a nation state. This is where influence starts or could start should a government wish to have influence.
Let's say that a government wants a ruling on:
1) a validation of (a domain name registration by) registrars and registries and resellers. It can lobby with ICANN and hope for self-regulation or it can write it in the national law;
2) abused IP addresses revocation. It can lobby with the RIRs (Regional Internet Registries) or write a regulation into national law;
3) revocation of abused domain names? Idem;
4) National organisations implementing best practices developed at the IETF, it can lobby there or oblige national organisations, e.g. ISPs, to respond and implement within six months through national law;
5) etc., etc., etc.
A national regulation, whether directly enforced or through mandatory self-regulation, would be much more effective from a government's perspective than lobbying within multi-stakeholder groups and hope for the best. Does this mean governments have to leave these groups?
*A new role*
I'm not claiming that governments should leave ICANN. I'm not even propagating regulatory regimes here. To the contrary, but I do think the present effort could be bettered. Governments should use ICANN meetings, and all others around the internet, to understand which topics are important, what issues are at stake, inform themselves as good as possible from all sides by asking all the right questions and to have a true understand of it all. From this understanding they can build their policies, using all that acquired information.
Policy that on the one hand aids the development of the internet and the economy while on the other assists in making it more secure. There is a fine line to walk here, but a line governments need to walk to be most effective on both sides. And, without the aid of industry it will never come about.
*Conclusion*
So, governments, lay down your ears and give your advice, but then go home and act on it in the best way possible. Preferably coordinated.
* *
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing listkictanet@lists.kictanet.or.kehttps://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pileleji%40ymca.gm
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm www.waigf.org www.aficta.org www.itag.gm www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org
* *
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail...
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
Hello Alice, Good Day, The Mechanism are straight forward within the overall IG processes, governmental institutions be it ICT Agencies, ICT line ministries are key players to the whole process as equal partners with other stake holders, ones that trust is developed and governments do not seem to hold any overriding authority over the process then all players are equal and know their mandate within the overall IG process. That's my methodology, the ICT ministry acting as focal point for the process, but each actor be it civil society, local municipalities "who seem to be left out at times" , academics, etc playing their own role within the context of their national process. Regards Poncelet On 14 May 2013 16:58, Alice Munyua <alice@apc.org> wrote:
Rather, what mechanisms should have in place to ensure we coordinate our engagements with the various Internet Governance processes?
best Alice
Should governments develop National regulations rather than lobbying within multistakeholder processes like ICANNs?
Best Alice
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130514_icann_and_gac_a_new_role_needed/
Syracuse University professor Milton Mueller published a blog<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/05/13/will-the-gac-go-away-if-the-board-doesnt-follow-its-advice/>under the title "Will the GAC go away if the Board doesn't follow its advice?". Having been to a number of (very limited) ICANN meetings on behalf of law enforcement cooperation, I would like to share a few — probably thought provoking — observations. The GAC should not leave ICANN but it may be more efficient if it's role changed and it's efforts were aimed at a different form of output.
*Governments and direct influence*
I know that I should explain here what ICANN and the GAC is, but this article is only of interest if you already have some background.
Over the past few years the role of the GAC, Government Advisory Board, within ICANN, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, seems to have changed. Having started as an advisory board, giving an advice to the ICANN board, which can be ignored or only taken to heed in parts, GAC operates more forceful. From advice to orders it seems.
As ICANN is multi stakeholder all the way and, as most internet related organs work, bottom up and through consensus only. Perhaps the most stifling form of democracy, but democracy it is. Show up or participate remotely and your voice is heard.
In this environment governments are seeking attention for their needs and concerns over the internet. Shouldn't they ask themselves: Is this the correct place to have direct influence?
*Why are governments concerned?*
The internet as we know it was created outside the view and influence of governments and by the time of the commercial boom, let's say, since 1998, most western countries had liberalised the telecommunication markets. If anything was regulated it was the old telephony and access fees, not the internet.
With the rise of commercial opportunities also other opportunities arose for criminal actors, hacktivists, activists, free speech advocates, state actors, etc. The results of these opportunities concern governments (of all sorts, for different reasons) as all sorts of national interest from public safety to economic are at stake. By the time governments seriously started to look around for enforcement matters and regulations they faced a global challenge. Hence the drive to have more say on internet related policy discussions. Hence more interest in ICANN, ITU, IGF, etc., but mostly ICANN it seems. But again is ICANN the right places to have direct influence?
*GAC and ICANN*
What also surprises me, is that governments put all this effort into ICANN. In the end this organisation handles only one aspect of what makes the internet work. Is this because it is the best organised one? There are so much more topics and equally important ones, where there seems less involvement. The RIRs, technical internet bodies, CERT meetings, etc., are less government attended. So again is ICANN the right place to have influence?
*National laws*
If a government wants real influence it has to write law that is binding within its own country. It would be advisable that (several) governments coordinate on laws and regulations, e.g. the E.U., perhaps even beyond. The three times a year GAC meeting could be great for coordination. Why go national?
The internet is only as stateless as the first cable coming on/into land somewhere. Everything behind that is within a nation state. This is where influence starts or could start should a government wish to have influence.
Let's say that a government wants a ruling on:
1) a validation of (a domain name registration by) registrars and registries and resellers. It can lobby with ICANN and hope for self-regulation or it can write it in the national law;
2) abused IP addresses revocation. It can lobby with the RIRs (Regional Internet Registries) or write a regulation into national law;
3) revocation of abused domain names? Idem;
4) National organisations implementing best practices developed at the IETF, it can lobby there or oblige national organisations, e.g. ISPs, to respond and implement within six months through national law;
5) etc., etc., etc.
A national regulation, whether directly enforced or through mandatory self-regulation, would be much more effective from a government's perspective than lobbying within multi-stakeholder groups and hope for the best. Does this mean governments have to leave these groups?
*A new role*
I'm not claiming that governments should leave ICANN. I'm not even propagating regulatory regimes here. To the contrary, but I do think the present effort could be bettered. Governments should use ICANN meetings, and all others around the internet, to understand which topics are important, what issues are at stake, inform themselves as good as possible from all sides by asking all the right questions and to have a true understand of it all. From this understanding they can build their policies, using all that acquired information.
Policy that on the one hand aids the development of the internet and the economy while on the other assists in making it more secure. There is a fine line to walk here, but a line governments need to walk to be most effective on both sides. And, without the aid of industry it will never come about.
*Conclusion*
So, governments, lay down your ears and give your advice, but then go home and act on it in the best way possible. Preferably coordinated.
* *
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing listkictanet@lists.kictanet.or.kehttps://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pileleji%40ymca.gm
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm www.waigf.org www.aficta.org www.itag.gm www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org * *
participants (6)
-
Ali Hussein -
Alice Munyua -
Barrack Otieno -
ICT Researcher -
McTim -
Poncelet Ileleji