[RSSAC Caucus] [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] At-Large Submission to the HIT Plenary Programme

[Paul Vixie]

On Thursday, 19 December 2019 04:25:41 UTC Fred Baker wrote:
> I'm changing the CC to the RSSAC Caucus, which, in addition to my vice-chair
> and relevant staff, includes the RSSAC and a number of DNS experts in other
> locations. ...

the "splinternet" proposal you included is quite bold.

> I think that splintering the Internet into three shards - or a great many
> more, which I suspect will happen if current BRIC forces hold sway - will
> make the conceptual basis for the RSS very tenuous indeed, and will
> economically hurt those countries that pursue the path. ...

in 2016 i predicted this path and wrote:

> Note well: I have personally reached out to operators inside the BRICS
> countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) to ensure that they
> know about the Yeti-DNS project, and can participate if they so choose.
> This reflects my view that if some country decides some day that ICANN
> cannot be trusted, and they want to create their own Internet DNS system, I
> want them to have the necessary expertise and competence and awareness of
> tradeoffs, in-country, to pursue their own sovereign course. If asked, I
> would advise such countries that any such independence would be nasty,
> brutish, and short. But I will not pretend that they have to listen to me.

(http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160330_let_me_make_yeti_dns_perfectly_clear/)

> What is proposed by Russia and others is one of two things - either a
> wresting of Internet governance away from those who have done it to date to
> the BRIC countries, or a return to many of the concepts behind the PSTN,
> including the creation of national DNS roots, or possibly other divisions.

the internet is fundamentally a new road not a new wall, and it's a new road 
that ignores (goes around or under) old walls. it is a "new world order" and 
it is based on western liberal democracy and capitalism. any existing order 
such as a nation which does not subscribe to democracy and/or capitalism faces 
an existential threat from the internet: either participate and lose one way, 
or don't participate and lose the other way. from your remarks here, i'm 
guessing that some less-western or less-democratic or less-capitalistic nation 
states are now indicating their self-confidence in regionalized internet-like 
technologies that they can govern without icann's help. (they may be right.)

> ... Those countries that follow
> that route also forfeit whatever business they might have gotten via those
> same companies. Russia has already formalized this, as I understand it;
> names used in Russia pretty much have to be Russian names served by Russian
> servers.

rulers often choose 100% of a small pie over 5% of a larger one, regardless of 
the number of grams or cubic centimeters of pie thus represented. so, to 
forfeit advantages in order to prevent upheaval is "a business decision" 
having little relationship to their self interest as understood by others. NK 
is an example of preferring 100% dominance over a smaller economy. they can 
still participate in the global economy's internet for the purpose of fraud 
and theft and illicit transfer of wealth into the smaller (isolated) economy, 
which in NK's case is the _only_ purpose they would have for connecting to the 
outside world.

> So, from my perspective, both as chair of RSSAC and a contributor to
> Internet technology for rather a while, I think this is a very valid topic,
> and expect that RSSAC people will find it interesting.

in my case, yes, and thank you for sharing. here's the really exciting part: 
BRICS is correct in the model they want to pursue, even if their reasons are 
incompatible with the ICANN "one world, one internet" narrative. i'll explain 
in a reply to this message, in order to separate the threads.

> > From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> > Date: Wednesday , 18 December 2019 at 15:28
> > To: Tanzanica King <tanzanica.king at icann.org>,
> > "so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org" <so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org> Subject:
> > [Ext] At-Large Submission to the HIT Plenary Programme
> > 
> > Dear SOAC Colleagues and Tanzanica
> > ...
> > Title: “One world - one internet?” Cybersecurity and geopolitics in a
> > multistakeholder environment
> > 
> > This session/roundtable seeks to explore the modern day rationale for
> > ICANN's policy of "One World. One Internet." In time of enhancing
> > splinternet, prevailing cybersovereignity trends and states taking
> > forever more effective measures to ensure their jurisdiction over what
> > they consider to be "their" part of cyberspace. It is in this context
> > that ICANN's global stewardship role has grown more significant than
> > ever. This session seeks to explore how to best justify ICANN's "One
> > world. One Internet" policy in the face of global disruptive trends. It
> > specifically looks at national and regional security and privacy laws as
> > well as new communication protocols, seeking to find how they attend or
> > add to this challenge.
> > 
> > The point of departure for this panel will be the perspective onto global
> > IG as presented in his 2018 IGF speech by President Macron, referring to
> > three different options for global Internet: the California based one,
> > the EU focused one and the Chinese one
> > (https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2018-speech-by-fren
> > ch-president-emmanuel-macron [intgovforum.org] ). We will seek to jointly
> > explore whether current and upcoming global trends actually do indicate
> > Internet fragmentation or whether ICANN can legitimately sustain its “One
> > World. One Internet” narrative. If so, what is the modern day rationale
> > behind it?
> > 
> > The desired outcome of this session is to identify and present to the
> > ICANN community a coherent, comprehensive narrative on why "One world.
> > One internet" remains a valid policy narrative in the time of disruptive
> > global trends and how to best communicate it to the different
> > stakeholders outside ICANN.
> > 
> > Panelists (TBC): Patrik Fältström, Rod Rasmussen/Merike Kaeo, Peter Micek
> > (AccessNow)/Thomas Rickert (EPDP), Lousewies van der Laan (?)/GAC Rep
> > (Manal Ismail?), León Sanchez, ISOC Rep?
> > 
> > Keywords: cybersecurity, privacy, GDPR, splinternet, sovereignty,
> > jurisdiction

-- 
Paul