[ccwg-internet-governance] list of volunteers draft of CCWG

Filiz Yilmaz koalafil at gmail.com
Sun Feb 23 20:30:22 UTC 2014


Dear all,

Please find our draft work on the arguments for the current Internet Registry System and the Critical Internet Resources management, in the attached file as well as in text appended below to this mail

Please post your comments to the list so we can all follow (note that I will miss this week’s meeting).

Filiz + Michele + Tracy

ps: 
If you also had volunteered to work on this initially, apologies for not running it with you. 
We did not remember seeing any other names volunteering from the posts we could follow on the mailing list. 



On 13 Feb 2014, at 17:55, Rafik <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Thanks Petya  for this list and notes.
> we also have the group for ICANN definition including Marylin, Kristina, Michele ,Aparna and Evan.
> 
>> Dear 
>> 
>> Please find below the list of volunteers for each definition within the contribution draft of the CCWG:
>> 
>> Definition: Multistakeholder  and Multistakeholder in ICANN.
>> 
>> Volunteers:  Leon Sanchez, Sarah Falvey, Aparna Sridhar, Joana and Philip.
>> 
>> 
> + Filiz
>>  
>> Definition: Multi-Lateral model.
>> 
>> Volunteers:  Leon Sanchez
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Country Internet Registries  (CIR) 
>> 
> correction : critical Internet resources 
>> Volunteers: Filiz Yilmaz, Michele Neylon.
>> 
>>  
>> Bottom up vs- Top down Internet governance
>> 
>> Volunteers: Marilyn Cade, Evan Leibovitch, Cintra Sooknanan.
>> 
>>  
>> DNSSEC and trust in the DNS and Trusted Community Representatives for DNSSEC Key Signing.
>> 
>> Volunteers: Michele Neylon, Ken Stubbs
>> 
> + James bladel , David Maher
>>  
>> The Internet Ecosystem.
>> 
> evolution of Internet ecosystem and ICANN role
>>  Fatima Cambronero, Marilia Maciel, Hago Dafalla
>> 
> + Marylin , Michele 
> 
> Please check if your name is missed  
> Those groups are open for everybody to join and we still need more people to contribute and lead those efforts. 
> The contributions should be discussed in the list so other WG members can comment and give feedback, that will be also reflected in the wiki space .
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
>> 
>> Best regards, 
>> 
>> Petya Minkova
>> Administrative Assistant
>> ICANN 
>> Rond Point Schuman 6, 
>> 1st floor 
>> B-1040 Brussels 
>> Belgium 
>> 
>> Mobile: +32 4 79 47 28 63 
>> Skype: petya.minkova.icann 
>> Email: petya.minkova at icann.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance


--------------
Internet Protocol Numbers (IPv4 and IPv6) as well as Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) are considered as critical Infrastructure resources in the Internet industry. 

Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) manage, distribute, and register these resources within their respective regions.

There are five RIRs:
AFRINIC: Providing services in Africa
APNIC: Providing services in Asia Pasific 
ARIN: Providing services in North America
LACNIC: Providing services in South Amerina
RIPE NCC: Providing services in Europe, Middles East and parts Central Asia.

RIR Communities develop the policies how the resources by their RIR should be delegated within the region. These established Policy Development Processes are documented and are openly accessible by everyone too. All policies are documented and archived in the respective RIR webpages as well as all the discussions during their development and around them.  

RIRs also coordinate with ICANN though the IANA function who delegate larger blocks of these resources to them based on Global IP Address and ASN Policies. These Global policies are again community-defined regional policies and RIRs facilitate their creation using established, open policy development processes. This regional input when shared by all RIR regional communities is channeled through ICANN’s Address Support Organization (ASO) and reviews and recommendations on global IP address policy for ratification by ICANN’s Board of Directors are made. This process is described and documented publicly in ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) MoU
at http://www.nro.net/documents/icann-address-supporting-organization-aso-mou. All the Global IP Address and ASN Policies can also be found on the NRO website and at ASO AC website at: http://aso.icann.org/global-policy-proposals/

This current system, Internet Numbers Registry System, had provided significant contributions for the Internet as we know today: 

RIRs support and work with technical communities, who understand infrastructure issues first hand. They also provide technical coordination services such as databases, network facilitation tools and trainings to facilitate the works of the technical communities at large attached to the Internet resources allowing faster innovation and better troubleshooting of issues that emerge. 

As the Internet has grown, some governments and intergovernmental organizations have sought to play a stronger role in governing its use and ensuring that it is properly regulated. This approach has been resisted by the Internet community at large, which maintains that imposing governmental controls would inevitably stifle this highly effective network. 

Governmental oversight structures may have negative impacts such as slowing Internet innovation, subordinating technical decisions to political criteria, and increasing bureaucracy. Such structures would reduce the highly valued security and stability of the Internet and may threaten the freedom of information exchange. The preservation of operational stability must be the key principle on which the transition to any new framework is based. 

One should also note that Internet is a fast-changing technology allowing enormous innovation and management of the resources should be based on policies foreseeing this innovation as well as allowing agile and bottom-up policy development frameworks that can be altered when necessary in consultation and participation of all parties involved. RIRs have long established Policy Development Processes enabling these aspects as well as processes how they interact with ICANN currently who hold the IANA function.  

As Internet has no borders in its functioning and cross border peering and cooperation between various service providers had been the basis of its running, regional policy development frameworks provide good foundation for the purposes of policy issues surrounding these resources. Internet services in one country will never be able to provide the most to its citizens unless connections go over the borders of this country. Accordingly regional policy development provides enough coverage allowing sight for such collaboration across borders and regions, stays manageable and efficient as it also takes into account regional needs of different practices and keeps facilitating the policy development fora for the interested individuals of organizations involved, providing meaningful engagement opportunities in the development first hand. 

The current Internet address management system is a very good example of multistakeholder environment. RIR communities are diverse and receive participation from technical, business, academic, private and public sectors. The RIR policy development processes facilitated and encouraged the dialogue between these various interests and empowered consensus-based decisions to be taken in regards to resources. 

Consequently, this system has brought stability, equity of access, openness, and transparency to one of the Internet’s most vital functions over two decades that it has been in place. The system enjoys significant community, industry, and government support and input and it suits best for the management of critical infrastructure resources that the Internet works on.

Goals of the current Internet Numbers Registry System, how it works and how over the years it has developed mechanisms by which the structures, policies, and processes of the Internet Numbers Registry System itself can evolve to meet the changing demands of the global Internet community are described in various IETF documents that were developed through a transparent and open process too. Latest of these can be found at under the IETF Document number RFC7020 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020). 

References:
ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) MoU
http://www.nro.net/documents/icann-address-supporting-organization-aso-mou

ICP-2: Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries:
http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/new-rirs-criteria

RFC7020,  The Internet Numbers Registry System
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020

Global Policy Development Process:
http://www.nro.net/policies/global-policies-development-process


--------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20140223/431cef2f/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ccwg.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 31744 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20140223/431cef2f/ccwg-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20140223/431cef2f/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list