[CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS

Mon Oct 3 15:58:17 UTC 2022

Dear  Chokri and Evan,

Thank you for the nice words.

The Internet is open, distributed, interconnected, and transnational. Participating in various meetings of ICANN has been very useful for me to bucket the core concerns into the four major buckets [#1 to #4] I mentioned in my mail on this discussion thread. . IMHO, ICANN is doing very well in not making these buckets fully watertight.

The governance through ICANN as I see it is primarily reflected as application of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.

It has been very useful to study the Multi-stakeholder model of ICANN from the following scoreable aspects.

#1. openness: attaching more importance to transparency and communication in decision-making;
#2. participation: ensuring participation of all relevant stakeholders
#3. accountability: clarifying the role of each party in the decision-making process; each stakeholder involved should assume responsibility for the role given to them
#4. effectiveness: decisions need to be taken at the appropriate level and time, and deliver what is needed
#5. coherence: ensuring coherence between diverse actions.

In principle, multi-stakeholder model is better 'than governance by governments alone'.  A 'stakeholder' has a legitimate interest in a particular Internet governance issue. The model recognizes that not all stakeholders automatically proclaim as stakeholders, and not all multi-stakeholder processes include all stakeholders.

Observation: The ICANN Multi - Stakeholder model has a high potential for resilience even though it has very limited or no wherewithal to control / regulate all stakeholders with / without ICANN.

For future proofing this model, I find the following two aspects very valuable.

  1.  Complexity - Please see the attachment

[https://res-geo.cdn.office.net/assets/mail/file-icon/png/photo_16x16.png]Modelling+Internet+Governance 2.jpg<https://annauniv0-my.sharepoint.com/:i:/g/personal/gopal_annauniv_edu/EYSH6b1E-7JLiU7iw06HFDIBTxy4E_A1a-_a3znganGNtg>

  1.  Universality -  UNESCO's 303 Internet Universality Indicators

https://www.unesco.org/en/communication-information/internet-governance/internet-universality-indicators/roamx-indicators#:~:text=UNESCO's%20Internet%20Universality%20Indicators%20are,Accessibility%2C%20Multi%2Dstakeholder%20participation.

In my humble opinion, the statutes and bye-laws can facilitate this. Again, I am not an authority on the global interpretations of the specific formal terms.

The reality of multi-stakeholder participation is at times challenged by issues that relate both to the nature of the Internet that includes jurisdiction, enforcement, scale and the pace at which it changes and grows.

A discipline of not blaming technology and localization for jurisprudence with local language support are the strong safeguards that I suggest.

Your thoughts are most welcome.

Sincerely,

Gopal T V
0 9840121302
https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545
https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. T V Gopal
Professor
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
College of Engineering
Anna University
Chennai - 600 025, INDIA
Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340
       (Res) 24454753
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
________________________________
From: Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr at gmail.com>
Sent: 03 October 2022 19:23
To: gopal <gopal at annauniv.edu>
Cc: mike palage.com <mike at palage.com>; Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS

Dear Gopal,
Thank you for this kindly reminder of ICANN bylaws, and  as @Evan Leibovitch<mailto:evan at telly.org> mentioned many of the DNS activities are out of ICANN control, so the ICANN Bylaws can hardly help us to cover new topics such  DNS   management using Blockchain, or blockchain-based threat (if we use @Evan Leibovitch<mailto:evan at telly.org> terms!)  ,since it's covering only the current ICANN activities.
In my opinion it is to the community (particularly the AC and in our case ALAC) to seek for new activities that could evolve the scope of ICANN and engage the necessary debates  (or help to  protect ICANN against any trends that could affects the public interests) and if necessary review the ICANN Bylaws in order to make it suitable to the technology evolvements (or any technical menaces) since ICANN is primarily a technical organization and their  rules should evolve with this technical evolvements.
Please note that SSAC has already created a work party entitled Evolution of DNS resolution<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/k-Tp1E7D5lMxqSQQb5vZBmwG7FctfhcKi-5fiF_39ZEcJVOazjfCwwH4u7EhUACzX2SjHw2GAnDDU8SG.PgsgD83yIIeZJr5h?startTime=1663722127000&_x_zm_rtaid=P8aF7Y8-SeCkYES06zYqBw.1664803258529.d7e23cefd66b7353da966f4749596d7a&_x_zm_rhtaid=752> [at 58 min] to "Explore the current state and evolving nature of DNS resolution with a focus on SSR issues related to alternative naming technologies (e.g., blockchain)".

Thank you again for your valuable contributions.

Friendly regards
Chokri

Le dim. 2 oct. 2022 à 09:58, gopal via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>> a écrit :
Dear All,

Over the past few years, I have been reading the ICANN Byelaws on and off. I claim no authority on the way the terms are interpreted internationally. For the purposes of the discussions within my professional responsibilities and interests, I think:

#1. ICANN's role is very limited on the mechanism or implementation level.

#2: ICANN is NOT responsible for concerns such as financial transactions, Internet content control, spam mails, Internet gambling, or data protection and privacy.

Note: Well, is an e-mail semi-formal in ICANN is a frequent question.

#3. ICANN oversees the distribution of unique IP addresses and domain names. It also ensures that each domain name maps to the correct IP address. ICANN ensures that every address is unique and that all users of the Internet can find all valid addresses.

#4. ICANN ensures minimum standards compliance from the domain name registrars. The accreditation agreement specifies  the rules and procedures applicable to the provision of Registrar Services.

I keep wondering about the future proofing and technology agnosticism in the process.

Again, I admit that I am using this discussion thread to get more clarity on my notes on ICANN remit on the above lines..

I eagerly look forward to your thoughts.

Sincerely,

Gopal T V
0 9840121302
https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545
https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. T V Gopal
Professor
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
College of Engineering
Anna University
Chennai - 600 025, INDIA
Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340
       (Res) 24454753
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
________________________________
From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>>
Sent: 27 September 2022 22:50
To: mike palage.com<http://palage.com> <mike at palage.com<mailto:mike at palage.com>>
Cc: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS

Hi Mike,

Evan I am going to push back. I think At-Large is probably the optimal place to discuss alternative root names.  Per the At Large Website – “At-Large Community acts on the interests of Internet users.”  I would argue that At Large is not limited to just Root Zone domain names and IP addresses.   Moreover, when you look at ICANN’s articles of incorporation, I think it provides a much larger mandate that just the coordination of domain names and IP addresses:

pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“Bylaws”). Such global public interest may be determined from time to time.  Any determination of such global public interest shall be made by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process.

Carlton's well-expressed pushback to the pushback is supported by fact.

The articles of a corporation are by nature (I've done quite a few myself)  as wide-ranging as regulations allow. Based on the Articles alone ICANN's aims are nearly indistinguishable from those of ISOC or the IGF. It's in those Bylaws and the Mission -- referred to by the Articles -- where we find the applicable scope and context limitations.

Bylaw 1.1(a)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article1> -- the very first one -- makes quite clear that ICANN's mission and remit is to (emphasis mine):

(i) Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS") and coordinates the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains ("gTLDs"). [...]

(ii) Facilitates the coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system.

(iii) Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol numbers and Autonomous System numbers. [...]

(iv) Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to provide registries needed for the functioning of the Internet as specified by Internet protocol standards development organizations. In service of its Mission, ICANN's scope is to provide registration services and open access for registries in the public domain requested by Internet protocol development organizations.

And that's immediately followed by 1.1(b):

ICANN shall not act outside its Mission.

So, indeed, ICANN's scope most certainly is limited to the DNS and IP numbers. At best 1.1(a)(iv) could be interpreted as mandating collaboration with non-DNS registration systems, but I'm waiting for "Internet protocol standards development organizations" to recognize them before ICANN gets involved. I have already agreed that we need to keep an eye out and be aware of challenges that might exist from external sources of collision that are outside ICANN's control. Such challenges have existed before.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root> But ICANN is not mandated to address the issue unless directed to do so by the IETF (or some other standards body? W3C? ANSI? IEEE?). And while At-Large has the ability to address ICANN issues beyond the policy-based limits of the GNSO, its pure function is to provide advice to the ICANN Board, staff and constituencies (that's the second "A" in ALAC) "on the activities of ICANN" according to Bylaw 12.2(d)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2022-06-02-en#article12>.

ICANN's activities are limited to the DNS and coordination with other bodies as directed by appropriate Internet standards organizations. No such direction has been given regarding blockchain-based DNS wannabes. And ICANN At-Large is limited to addressing ICANN's activities.

Anything beyond this is an abrogation of the ICANN Bylaws. I stand behind what I said.

Cheers,
Evan

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto: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/20221003/524bc5d9/attachment-0001.html>