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

Tue Oct 4 07:12:19 UTC 2022

It's great following all the different perspectives in this discussion.

My takeway is that  it would be important for ALAC to keep an eye on the
developments of blockchain domains globally for the sole purpose of
advocating for and protecting the interests of the Internet end users.

Regards,
Annett Bonuke

On Mon, 3 Oct 2022, 18:58 gopal via CPWG, <cpwg at icann.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> 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 <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 <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> 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> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch via
> CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> *Sent:* 27 September 2022 22:50
> *To:* mike palage.com <mike at palage.com>
> *Cc:* 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
>
> 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
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20221004/ab018490/attachment-0001.html>