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

[Stephanie Perrin]

+1.  We are never going to resolve the tensions, because the approach to 
the matter between different groups with different interests is vast.  
We need to strike a bargain that seems fair enough for the moment. 
Detente.  But I don't recommend introducing that word

Stephanie Perrin


On 2016-08-18 18:42, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 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.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160819/4b4bfd49/attachment.html>