<html>
<body>
This document, I interspred with comments, informations, questions gives
us a better understanding of the I* society attemps. Of its ideas,
targets and limitations. One could only wish that all the published
document are referenced on the wiki.1NET I proposed.<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b>From:
isoc-advisory-council-bounces@elists.isoc.org
[<a href="mailto:isoc-advisory-council-bounces@elists.isoc.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:isoc-advisory-council-bounces@elists.isoc.org</a>] On Behalf Of
Lynn St.Amour<br>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 11:27 PM<br>
To: isoc-advisory-council@elists.isoc.org<br>
Subject: [isoc-advisory-council] Internet Governance Update - Nov. 15,
2013<br>
</b> <br>
Dear AC members,</blockquote><br>
AC= ISOC Advisory Council. List is not disclosed. It consists of
"representatives of the organization members of the ISOC<i>.
</i>Organization members include representatives from corporations,
non-profit, trade and professional organizations, foundations,
educational institutions, government agencies and other international
organizations with varied interests."
<a href="http://isoc.org/wp/ac/charter/" eudora="autourl">
http://isoc.org/wp/ac/charter/</a> - 2010-2012 officers (published list
not updated) were Keith Davidson, Desiree Miloshevic and Theresa
Swinehart. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Please find the second of what
is planned to be regular updates on key Internet governance activities.
Future updates will be shorter. The background included here is to help
layout today’s overall environment. </blockquote><br>
I am first interested in the Aug. 29, 2012 OpenStand statement between
"I* CEOs": ISOC,IAB, IETF, W3C, including IEEE,
subsequently endorsed by RIRs and published as RFC 6852. This text
states:
<dl>
<dd>"Over the past several decades, the global economy has realized
a <b><u>huge bounty</u></b> due to the Internet and the World Wide Web.
These could not have been possible without [] a modern global standards
paradigm [] where the economics of global markets, fueled by
technological advancements, drive global deployment of standards
regardless of their formal status."
</dl>I am first interested in it because it can be suspected that the
control of this "huge bounty" is in everyone mind when their
self-claimed authors assemble. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> In the last month, there
have been many discussions around two developments that took place just
prior to and during the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Bali. <br>
<br>
· One was the Montevideo Statement,
which was distributed on 7 October and was well received at the IGF.
<br>
· The other was the unexpected
announcement at the IGF of an Internet Governance Summit, or High Level
Meeting, to be held in Brazil in early May 2014. </blockquote><br>
It was documented by Brazil and Fadi some days ago? May be ISOC could
subscribe to an ISP, in order to be kebt informed in reasonable delays.
<br>
If I correctly read this Fadi went and see Dilma with no particular
agenda, just after she had attacked the USA in the UN. Very diplomaticaly
unreasonable from the State Dept. Very low grade professionnalism by the
Obama Administration and ICANN. Decidedly we cannot trust such
people!<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b>I* CEO Meetings:<br>
</b> <br>
With respect to the Montevideo meeting and the statement that was issued
afterwards, some background might be helpful<br>
<br>
· these I* CEO meetings have taken
place regularly for the past three years (usually twice a year, several
days). </blockquote><br>
Thank you to let us know how the Aug. 2012 statement was prepared: what
about Steve Mills, President of IEEE? Now we understand that RIRs and
ICANN attended.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
· They were mainly to build
relations/common cause across the I* organizations. We work to understand
our respective positions on key issues (and hopefully are aligned) or at
least to minimize surprises. <br>
· The meetings were not meant to be a
"standing venue", but rather to build stronger relations. <br>
· The meetings are convened and
chaired by ISOC, specifically, by me, as ISOC President & CEO, at the
request of the other I* organizations. This reflects our broad Mission
and the breadth of our organization and
responsibilities.</blockquote><br>
This tells who is the real leader.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
· Finally, the I* organizations
are: IAB, IANA functions operator, ICANN, IETF, ISOC, the 5 RIR's, and
W3C.</blockquote><br>
This is clear. <br>
They are the authors of the messy "Internet Book" we are
supposed to use and obey.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Unlike past meetings, the I*
community felt that the surveillance issues (and the reactions we were
seeing affecting the Internet and users) were so serious that we needed
to go on record. And, thanks to Raúl Echeberria for his leadership
throughout the meeting around such a statement. </blockquote><br>
From this one can infer that the I* community are those who obey the *
organizations.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> As virtually all (maybe
all) of the organizations had previously been on record for many of these
points, we felt it was appropriate to go forward.<br>
<br>
Heading to the IGF week, the I* CEO’s had planned to work together to
“catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global
multistakeholder Internet cooperation” as called for in the Montevideo
Statement. This took on an added urgency and dimension with the
unexpected announcement of the Brazil meeting.</blockquote><br>
:-)<br>
Montevideo was urgent due to the Brazil meeting annoucement .. afterward.
Let say there is an urgency for the Industry of Provision to respond
Governments. In this the only missing one is the Industry of Utilization
(the one which should have developped and deployed the security
tools).<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b>Brazil High Level
Meeting<br>
</b> <br>
This “Brazil summit” came out of a discussion between ICANN and the
Brazilian government and followed the Montevideo I* CEO meeting. This
announcement caused concern on the part of many of those present at the
IGF for various reasons: <br>
<br>
· it was seen to be potentially
competing with the IGF, <br>
· the role of governments vs. other
stakeholders was unclear, <br>
· the timing prior to several
important ITU and UN meetings raised concerns about its outcomes and
their impact on those meetings. <br>
· There was also a mistaken
assumption that the Brazil meeting was linked to the collective I*
organization’s leadership as an outcrop of the Montevideo statement.<br>
<br>
In the course of the discussions at the IGF and since, what was
originally labeled a “Summit” evolved to a “high level meeting.”
Discussions are taking place with the Brazilians and a number of
organizations, and the I* organizations are also involved, including
ISOC. <br>
<br>
While nothing is official, the purpose of the Conference is expected to
address strengthening Internet cooperation by discussing high-level
principles and institutional frameworks. This conference is not meant to
produce proposals on specific Internet policy issues.</blockquote><br>
This sounds as consolidating the "concordance framework" in
which the intergovernance can deploy. What the industry of provision
(facing heaving investments) needs is stability in that area and a clear
understanding of its Governments' imposed constraints. The missing
industry of utilization needs to know better, out of any politicalism and
activism, the providers and the end-users attitudes<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b>Montevideo Statement and
catalyzing community-wide efforts<br>
</b> <br>
Many of the discussions during the IGF week focused on clarifying and
gaining support for some possible initiatives (and necessarily included
the Brazil meeting), as well as gaining support from other communities
including the private sector, civil society and governments. These
discussions also aimed to clarify/advance: <br>
<br>
1) statements about a shift in leadership away from the United States as
a result of disclosures about surveillance and the subsequent impact on
the principles and reality of the open global Internet, and
</blockquote><br>
This is an absurd motivation. The USG did his job. The true motivation is
that no one has scaled to the technology capacities (some call the
"singularity") and we have to adapt.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> 2) continuing discussions
about the future of Internet Governance and what was called Internet
Governance gaps.</blockquote><br>
There is no "Internet Governance". There is an internet zone,
part of the digital area of the world intergovernance which has quite
complexified during the last 125 years.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b>Possible Initiatives<br>
</b> <br>
Discussions at IGF and elsewhere seem to be coalescing around the
following initiatives:<br>
<br>
1. Gauging support for a
multi-stakeholder coalition/dialogue/initiative that would help close an
“Internet Governance gap”</blockquote><br>
There is a need of clarification between seven industrial
levels:<br><br>
- architectonics: which cyberspace for which digisphere and
civilization?<br>
- normes and references (the "internetbook")<br>
- providers (the I*$ociety that ISOC tries to coordinate)<br>
- operators (those who invest in what provides develop)<br>
- interfacers (network intellligent use designers, active and secure
content support)<br>
- professionnal (ICC) and family (consumer organizations) users.<br>
- applications (FLOSS, software developpers, end-users).<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> a) the purpose of and
level of formality/structures to support this coalition, etc.<br>
b) assessing support for a grass-roots campaign (incl. a significant
online presence)<br>
<br>
2. The possibility of an independent high level panel to make
recommendations on IG principles and recommend frameworks/institutions
for IG<br>
<br>
3. Less directly, gauging need for developing a possible new
framework/mechanisms/institution for Internet governance<br>
<br>
<b>IANA and ICANN Globalization<br>
</b> <br>
An additional topic of discussion was the globalization of IANA and
ICANN. This is largely (but not unanimously) seen to be separate from the
Internet governance topics above. There is a lot of work being done on
this by the I* CEO’s and ICANN, and separate updates will be sent on this
going forward.</blockquote><br>
This considerable work will be interesting as no-one can explani what
this globalization may mean.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <b>Status of
Initiatives<br>
</b> <br>
There have been many meetings held during and since the IGF (some I* CEO
meetings and many other smaller group meetings), and it has been quite a
moving target. To cut to the current status:<br>
<br>
· Coalition/Dialogue: With respect to
the first “initiative” above, the emerging purpose seems to be: <br><br>
o catalyse a multi-stakeholder movement <br>
o to develop, through an open processes, a framework for
evolving, broadening and strengthening Internet Governance/Cooperation
arrangements, <br>
o and to advocate for its adoption.</blockquote><br>
MS is a decision method among people. The crux is the list of concerned
people.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
· In discussions since the IGF
with a <b><u>small group</u></b> from Industry, Civil Society, I*, and
others there seems to be support for a global dialogue (not a Coalition)
and a name was agreed 1Net. <br>
<br>
o ICANN has put up the basic website (see:
http://www.1Net.org) and the NRO/AfriNIC CEO is the lead.<br>
o There are discussions underway with respect to finalizing
the purpose/charter, the management going forward and a possible steering
committee. <br>
o Other open questions remain about the grassroots campaign,
what will actually be done with the “dialogue/website”, etc. <br>
o And, all of these should be resolved by the broader
community.<br>
<br>
· There are important funding
implications as well, and this is expected to be a point of discussion
not only within the broader “Dialogue”, but with the I* CEO’s as well.
</blockquote><br>
OK. Let remember that this is ultimately funded by <u>users</u>. They
only want the best retrun for their money.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
· ISOC is watching this space
carefully to see what might be useful, while being mindful that each
organization needs to thoroughly engage its own communities. This
Dialogue should not be a substitute for that engagement. Our independent
and yet aligned voices are very important components of any Internet
governance dialogue, and were clearly instrumental in our considerable
success throughout WSIS I and II.</blockquote><br>
Glad to see that I* members indirectly consider WSIS as a success. This
was not the IETF case at that time.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
· Independent high level panel
– this has been modified significantly since it was first moved at the
Montevideo I* CEO meeting (where in full transparency, virtually all
gathered had significant objections to an All Star high level panel – for
all the reasons one would expect in our community). <br>
<br>
It is now meant to be only one possible input and has a more Internet
informed panel. There will be additional information available
shortly.</blockquote><br>
Waiting for the ISOC to fully shape and describe their mechanic.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
· <b>IMPORTANT</b> - NEW!!
Issues Framework: Internet Challenges: A framework for tackling the hard
political, technical, operational and social problems facing the
Internet<br>
<br>
Finally, I would like to point to a resource ISOC recently developed in
order to better inform various discussions on Internet Governance Issues.
This framework for tackling Internet issues was developed by Leslie
Daigle and myself in advance of ISOC’s opening speech at the IGF. We
pulled it together over the course of a day and a half, so please help us
improve it.<br>
<br>
The framework is, in part, a response to what I believe are somewhat
cavalier statements being made about Internet governance gaps and
so-called orphan issues which entirely belie the underlying complexity of
the issues, and/or ignore efforts already underway to help address them.
We felt we needed to engage the broader community in a more thoughtful
discussion. This was well received in the IGF, and at the recent IETF
meeting where it was also featured. <br>
<br>
· The objective is to categorize
possible solution paths for the various IG challenges we all see. This is
expected to help in subsequent discussions of roles or new
mechanisms.<br>
· We are looking for input across
many communities and would very much appreciate any comments you may
have. Over the next few weeks you will see more specific requests and
opportunities to inform, use, and further develop this framework. Find
out more at:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.internetsociety.org/internetstrong" eudora="autourl">
http://www.internetsociety.org/internetstrong</a> <br>
<br>
and please do start discussions on this “framework/taxonomy” on our
lists, with members, as well as on other lists. We need broad input and
review, these are cross-cutting issues and require the engagement of many
different stakeholders. <br>
<br>
<b>Closing:<br>
</b> <br>
We will post regular updates to our members, and on our website/blogs,
etc. We look forward to working together to help make the Internet
stronger and we encourage everyone to get engaged in these discussions –
locally, nationally, regionally and, of course internationally. And,
bring your friends and colleagues – the more voices the better.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Lynn St.Amour</blockquote></body>
</html>