[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Open Internet definition

Thu Aug 10 15:11:54 UTC 2017

Hi Daniel
 I understand DNS will include DNS industry too. Is the overall system and community. I see no limit for DNS - whole ICANN is under "DNS concept"
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 
Sorry for any typos. 

On 8/10/17, 05:55, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Daniel Dardailler" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org on behalf of danield at w3.org> wrote:

>Hello Erika, all
>
>to me, Open Internet refers to the capacity for anyone to connect to the 
>network with an expected quality of service (that would cover things 
>like shutdown, net neutrality) but also to innovate on top of it 
>(requiring open interfaces).
>
>Connecting is important but connecting to a closed system, like AOL in 
>the past, even if everyone can connect, is not good enough. Anyone 
>should be able to build new applications, add content, create new 
>logical layers, in an open way, that is, without asking permission. 
>That's why Open Standards are paramount.
>
>Without an Open TCP/IP stack, as delivered by IETF, no Open Web stack 
>could have flourished. And without the Open Web, no DNS growth.
>
>We can't limit our funding to just the DNS layer, as it stands directly 
>on other Open layers (IP, http) that are required to function properly 
>(and evolve properly) for the DNS to succeed.
>
>Even though one could argue that the openness of the physical layer 
>underlying the IP/Web/DNS layers (DSL, Fiber, Wifi, 5G, etc, done by 
>IEEE, ITU) is as important, I think we need to limit our funding 
>objectives to Internet middleware, that is, standards and code portable 
>across physical network architecture.
>
>On the other side of the scale, there are several Open platforms or 
>applications that use DNS, Web and IP to provide reasons for people to 
>connect: wikipedia, open search, open social networking, linked data 
>crowdsourcing, etc., and even though I would personally like to fund 
>these kinds of projects, since they constitute (along with Open 
>standards)  the Commons of the Internet, I doubt this will  pass the bar 
>of the ICANN mission alignment.
>
>So to summarize, Open Internet, as far as this CCWG is concerned is IMO:
>   - Not inclusive of the physical layer (however open is can be, too far 
>  from ICANN mission, and not clear it needs funding)
>   - Inclusive of the transport and presentation layer (TCP/IP, Web, 
>directly linked to DNS operations, and needs funding)
>   - Inclusive of the addressing layer (IPv6, DNS, it's ICANN core 
>activities, so not clear to me  it needs funding since ICANN already has 
>a healthy budget without the auctions. Isn't DNS capacity building part 
>of ICANN responsibilities already ?)
>   - Not inclusive of the app/platform/content layer (too far  from ICANN 
>mission, although it needs funding too)
>   - Inclusive of the policy layer (shutdown, net neutrality, etc., even 
>though I agree with others that these are very sensitive topics that 
>would position ICANN on a difficult path vs. some of its constituencies, 
>e.g. the GAC, or telco/DNS players).
>
>
>
>
>On 2017-08-10 08:10, Erika Mann wrote:
>> Concerning: OPEN INTERNET
>> 
>> See below an exchange I had with Marika concerning this topic.
>> 
>> Our exchange might help to clarify few points ahead of our call today.
>> 
>> 
>> Talk to you later,
>> Erika
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> FROM: Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com>
>>> DATE: August 7, 2017 at 8:40:48 AM GMT+2
>>> TO: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>> CC: Ching Chiao <chiao at brandma.co>, Joke Braeken
>>> <joke.braeken at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org"
>>> <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>>> SUBJECT: RE: FOR YOUR REVIEW - OBJECTIVES & EXAMPLES MIND MAP AND
>>> AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK'S MEETING
>> 
>>> Good morning Marika - I added few more points below. I copied my
>>> original reply and simply added few recommendation how to deal with
>>> the 'open Internet' definition part.
>>> 
>>> I hope this helps.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Erika
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Marika Konings
>>> <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi Erika, Ching,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Following last week’s meeting, please find attached a first
>>> attempt to roll
>>>> up the top ranked objectives into an overall objective with
>>> identified
>>>> priorities (following the lines of my suggestion last week). In
>>> addition,
>>>> I’ve pulled out the examples from the survey that contained the
>>> most details
>>>> and as such will be easier to review for consistency with the
>>> ICANN mission
>>>> as well as objective(s) (once agreed).
>>> 
>>> As identified during the call, the
>>>> concept of “Open Internet” will require definitional work or a
>>> rewording.
>>>> Having done a google search, the term often seems associated with
>>> net
>>>> neutrality which may not be what the CCWG has in mind. As such,
>>> the CCWG
>>>> will need to decide whether to stick with the term and provide a
>>> definition
>>>> or whether it prefers to describe what is intended with the term
>>> Open
>>>> Internet. Although the other objectives have been excluded as
>>> specific
>>>> priorities, one could envision how projects that may focus on some
>>> of those
>>>> areas could also fit within the currently identified priorities.
>>> As also
>>>> discussed, the topic of replenishing the reserve fund will need to
>>> be
>>>> considered separately. It is up to you to decide whether that is a
>>>> discussion you want to have now or to park for later.
>>>> 
>>>> EM = Just a quick word of caution. You find in Google always more
>>> those connections that are currently more researched and not those
>>> that reflect upon a broader and more precise context.
>>> Net neutrality is currently hotly debated in the US and the term
>>> open Internet is often used to describe that telcos shall not be
>>> allowed to give preferential access to certain players.
>>> There are other environments that are closer to ICANN (open Internet
>>> and open source for example) that might present some good examples
>>> for investment opportunities, for example in the DNS and security
>>> environment (Ash could talk about this).
>>> We therefore need some examples for our environment. (copied from
>>> the email I send to you already)
>>> 
>>> What to do?
>>> 
>>> 1) definition of 'open Internet' in relation to ICANN's mission and
>>> in relation to the work of the future fund could/should have various
>>> dimensions:
>>> 
>>> * historical preamble: The DNS serves from it's early days an open
>>> Internet in the sense ...
>>> * positive definition: The 'fund' shall be able to support projects
>>> that support an open Internet culture in the sense that projects
>>> related to open source developments for the DNS are (for example)
>>> allowed to apply ...
>>> * negative definition: The 'fund' shall not support projects that
>>> don't relate in any way to ICANN's mission and the development of
>>> the DNS
>>> * examples: lastly provide few examples about what is meant (DNS
>>> software and security for example) to guide future project examiners
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I’ll be out on vacation until 11 August, but will have
>>> intermittent access
>>>> to email so I will be able to include any edits / suggestions you
>>> may have.
>>>> My suggestion would be that you provide your feedback by Thursday
>>> 3 August
>>>> at the latest so this can be sent to the CCWG by Friday at the
>>> latest so
>>>> there is sufficient time for review and feedback prior to next
>>> week’s
>>>> meeting.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> With regards to the agenda for next week’s meeting, it appears
>>> pretty
>>>> straightforward:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Roll Call
>>>> Welcome – DOI
>>>> Overview from Xavier Calvez on investment management
>>>> Review responses to charter question #4 and discuss next steps
>>> (see
>>>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6GNDQHJ6/)
>>>> Review redrafted objectives and examples (see mind map attached)
>>>> Confirm next steps & next meeting (next CCWG-AP meeting is
>>> scheduled for
>>>> Thursday 24 August at 16.00 UTC)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Please let us know if you agree. If so, we’ll go ahead and
>>> cancel our prep
>>>> call. Joke will take care of getting this out to the CCWG early
>>> next week.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Looking forward to receiving your feedback.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marika
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marika Konings
>>>> 
>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet
>>> Corporation for
>>>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>> 
>>>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
>>>> 
>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and
>>> visiting
>>>> the GNSO Newcomer pages.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
>_______________________________________________
>Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds