[ccwg-internet-governance] The Mapping of International Internet public policy issues

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Wed Dec 31 09:31:48 UTC 2014


Dear Marilyn,

first I'd like to thank Nigel for sharing the excellent text that will
make up ICANN's input in the process, as well as your suggestions.
My comments are in-line:

On 25/12/2014 17:45, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> Nigel, thanks for sharing this. As this document is being read by many
> non technical policy makers, I think that it is worthwhile to ensure
> that the descriptions provided are validated, and do appreciate ICANN
> contributing to these important clarifications. 
>
>
> ICANN's proposed responses on IP addresses do not seem to me to
> actually add any clarification.  The Wikipedia definition is probably
> what most lay readers turn to.   If you find it inadequate, you may
> want to also consider how to contribute to getting it updated. 
>
> I am assuming that you are encouraging the NRO or ASO to respond
> directly to the CSTD Secretariat as relevant. 
>
> However, I am not so sure that your proposed change really
> accomplishes what is needed.
>
> IP addresses are unique in and of themselves -- I think you are
> describing how IP addresses /may/ be used, in certain applications.
>  BUT, that does not make the number/non unique./  I would not think it
> useful to say that the numbers are not unique....

Originally, IP addresses were unique. Then came Network Address
Translation (NAT). So I would say that  public direct routable IP
addresses are unique, but some are re-used behind Network Address
Translation (NAT). For example many IP addresses have been defined as
"Private Addresses". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network


>
> ICANN Response on deployment of IPv6:
> I also find ICANN's response in need of improvement here, or perhaps
> ISOC's response may be additive, as they are doing so much to
> encourage the rollout of IPv6. 
>
> I agree that the adoption of IPv6 is driven by business factors,
> including the importance of applications that benefit from IPv6, the
> cost of replacing existing equipment, etc. However, policy decisions
> do drive adoption, as we have seen when national government policies
> have established dates by when international government networks must
> be IPv6 ready. 

+1 absolutely. The situation is becoming critical in this area, as what
I call "band aid patches" are being rolled out in the guise of Carrier
Grade NAT, patches which I consider will ultimately break down badly.
Transition to IPv6 is not a trend, it is not a joke, it is real and is
the only way forward to ensure the Internet will not ultimately collapse
under its own weight. I really think this paragraph needs to be
strengthened accordingly to reflect the urgency of the situation. There
is indeed a policy factor in that IPv6 roll-out is costly and unlikely
to be undertaken driven by business factors - as we have seen.
Understandably businesses will try and follow the path of lesser
immediate cost and so far IPv6 is not the winning formula because
cheaper alternatives exist.

>
> I do  not agree that removal of the paragraph is the solution.  Again,
> this is an opportunity to get facts in the document.  I was one of the
> speakers during the Intercessional who strongly encouraged outreach to
> entities named, such as ISOC, ICANN, etc. and again, I appreciate your
> sharing the initial draft with the CCWG-IG.

+1

>
> GAC ROLE
> I wonder if you might improve the last sentence.  While it is factual,
> it ignores that there is an agreed procedure, in the ICANN bylaws,
> which requires a formal process, should the Board not accept consensus
> advise from the GAC.  I believe that is a very important safeguard to
> mention in this document, as it is being read by many who are not
> experts in ICANN. 
>
> DRAFT from ICANN copied from Nigel
> s email. 
>>
>> However, there is no consensus on this issue. Whereas some view
>> governments' role through the Government Advisory Council (GAC)
>> insufficient and point out that formally speaking, the role is only
>> advisory, others are of the opinion that in practice, governments
>> play an important role and there are formal procedures in place for
>> cases where the ICANN Board disagrees with GAC advice. /In fact in
>> the vast majority of cases the ICANN Board agrees to consensus Advice
>> communicated by the GAC*.*/* Insert new sentences about Board
>> procedure should they not accept consensus advice..*
>>

Treatment of GAC advice is indeed mandated in the bylaws, Article XI,
Section 2.1.j and k where the need for the Board to engage in
negotiations with the GAC is bylaw-mandated. It is the only ICANN
Advisory Committee that benefits from this bylaw. As a matter of
background (but not relevant to the CSTD process), the ATRT2's
recommendation 9.1 is asking for a process for other Advisory Committees
that goes some way to improve the Board's response to their advice, yet
this falls very much short of the privilege which the GAC already has.
Ref: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#XI

Kind regards,

Olivier

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20141231/8bfe7478/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list