[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] High level goal (was Re: For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement)

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:18:13PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> the WG will have to try to find solutions to mitigate the tensions
>among stakeholders with regard to possible RDS requirements and
>policies.  In fact, I believe that this is a key point of the overall
>problem statement.

I don't think we actually disagree about this, but let me try to put a
different gloss on that and see whether you think it's right.

Our problem is not to resolve the tension among stakeholders or
different parties.  Our problem is to forge a policy that takes into
account those various views, with the understanding that the goal is
ultimately to produce a policy that produces the best outcome for the
Internet (which means also for the constituent networks and the actual
and potential users of them).  One consequence of that understanding
is that we probably should not produce policies that radically empower
one set of views at the overwhelming cost of another, unless the
losing view is itself something that does not contribute to good
outcomes for the Internet.  (So, for instance, it's ok to say that a
view which desires to undermine the end to end principle is one we
simply will not accommodate: its entire goal is to undermine the basis
of internetworking.)

ICANN policies are best when they support and promote the
interoperation of networks that make up the Internet, where those
policies impinge upon the DNS at the levels closest to the root zone.
Some of that policy inevitably interacts with national laws, sub-,
trans-, and inter-national issues in operation of the constituent
networks, and issues that arise at the nexus of protocol operation and
use of those protocols (where the "users" in this case are the entire
class of anyone who wants to use the Internet at the top-most parts of
the DNS).  For that reason, ICANN policies need to reflect those
conditions, which means taking into account the legal and political
realities that affect the Internet wherever it is deployed.  At the
same time, we need to accept and recognise that some legal and
political demands really do represent a threat to the Internet itself,
and such demands (regardless of which legal regime backs them) are not
something that ICANN policy can legitimately accommodate.

Therefore, we set our bar too high if we think we can _resolve_ the
tussle[1].  All we can do is work out a _modus vivendi_ in which some
new stage in the tussle stabilizes for a period.  It seems to me that
we are at a stage in Internet development where everyone acknowledges
that (1) the existing state of affairs is unsatisfying to just about
everyone and (2) the technology has evolved in ways that permit us to
look at desires with fresh eyes and attempt to make new,
medium-term-stable arrangements.

Does that seem close to what you're trying to suggest?

Best regards,

A

[1] http://david.choffnes.com/classes/cs4700fa14/papers/tussle.pdf.
In my opinion, anyone who hasn't read that paper and who is
participating in Internet policy development is doing him or herself a
disservice.

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com