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

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at icann.org
Wed Dec 31 18:30:42 UTC 2014

Olivier cc as above

Good evening and many thanks for these useful comments; will co-ordinate
them with others from staff and submit to UNCTAD later.

Happy New Year to all and look forward to working with everyone in 2015.



From:  Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
Date:  Wednesday 31 December 2014 09:31
To:  Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, Nigel Hickson
<nigel.hickson at icann.org>
Cc:  "cwg- >> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org"
<ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] The Mapping of International
Internet public policy issues

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".

> 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. 


> 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,


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20141231/85633b46/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5027 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20141231/85633b46/smime.p7s>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list