[CPWG] Today's call

Tue Mar 29 07:11:17 UTC 2022

Fully agree with you Roberto.  And, I wasn't implying that YOU are
complaining. It said that in a general sense, that some tend to complain.

Sivasubramanian M

On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 11:13 AM Roberto Gaetano <
roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Siva,
>
> you can discuss positive ways to bring people together (=negotiate) only
> after you have clearly established the picket fence
>
> I don’t think I was complaining, or at least this was not my intention - I
> just wanted to make the point that the unique interoperable internet is a
> non-negotiable basic principle
>
> r.
>
>
> On 28.03.2022, at 22:08, sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Roberto,
>
> If there is a geopolitical forum, a fitting topic for the forum would be
> one that would discuss positive ways of bringing political blocks together
> to keep the Internet global. It needs to be a conversation to determine
> confidence building measures and foster dialogue, not merely complain that
> the Internet is being pulled in different directions.
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 10:15 PM Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I have another commitment that I am unable to postpone, so, regretfully,
>> I will not attend this call.
>>
>> I will therefore paste below a contribution that I have provided to
>> another list to provide my position for the topic at hand - and add a
>> couple of comments to observations made yesterday in the chat.
>>
>> *I believe that ICANN does have a political role, the point is to be
>> clear about what role and in favour of whom.*
>> *To resist the temptation to cut off pieces of the unique, interoperable
>> Internet *is* a political position, whether it comes from Ukraine to close
>> .ru or from the US to close .ly or .ir.*
>>
>> *No matter how sad we are about the Russian invasion of Ukraine and how
>> frustrated we are for not being able to do much, we have to understand that
>> while us, as individuals, have these feelings, ICANN has to act taking a
>> higher view of the issues at hand, abstracting from the current situation
>> and holding tightly to general principles. And the general principle is
>> that whatever results in breaking the unique, interoperable Internet is
>> *bad* and must not be done.*
>>
>> *Just think how happy would be the Russian and Chinese Governments, to
>> name just two of the many, who have asked for some form of breaks in the
>> Internet infrastructure or have actively put barriers that break the
>> interoperability - not to even mention uniqueness - of the Internet? I can
>> hear them say, maybe at a UN meeting:  “You see that they speak one thing
>> and do the opposite?”; “So breaking the Internet is possible and
>> accepted?”; and, last but not least “How can we leave the coordination of a
>> global infrastructure in the hands of a body that takes decisions in favour
>> of one part of the world?”*
>>
>> *Obviously, the same rules would apply if Russia manages to get control
>> over the Ukrainian Government, and a new Ukrainian government asks IANA to
>> relegate .ua: the relegation should be denied.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *16:38:48 From Jeffrey Neuman to Everyone: *There are other types of
>> things that can be done: (a) ICANN can stop using vendors based in Russia,
>> (b) ICANN can not consider fellows from Russia, (c) they can donate money
>> to support the infrastructure of the Internet in Ukraine, etc.
>>
>> I agree, there are other things that can be considered that do not risk
>> to break the Internet. Of course, every idea should be discussed to figure
>> out the (possibly unintended) consequences. For instance I wonder whether
>> (b) above would eliminate the possibility to young people to come to an
>> ICANN meeting and hear voices that differ from the domestic propaganda.
>> OTOH (c) seems perfect - and also timely ad there might be disruptions
>> caused by the war that have to be cured.
>>
>> One thing that the GAC could do is to propose a motion. After all, the UN
>> GA has passed a motion with some 140+ Yes, 5 No, some 35 abstain (if I
>> remember correctly) and chances are that we have in the GAC a similar
>> distribution.
>>
>> I am also sure that the ICANN 73 agenda will be updated including space
>> for discussions about this topic. Regardless the action that we take about
>> the Russian invasion of Ukraine there is the need to discuss among
>> ourselves the different position in a plenary where all stakeholder groups
>> are presenting their view. There has been also a direct request to Göran by
>> the Ukrainian Government (attached below), to which Göran has so replied:
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-fedorov-02mar22-en.pdf -
>> I think that it is important that the community takes a common position
>> that the different stakeholders could present in case they are faced with
>> similar requests.
>>
>> I will listen to the recording
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Roberto
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
>> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
>> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20220329/49ee380c/attachment.html>