[governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

[David Cake]

On 25/10/2013, at 2:35 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> This is a perfect example of why I've been warning you to focus in on things the IG community actually knows something about and can do something about, such as the IANA contract and ICANN accountability, rather than posing as a global parliament and thinking that you can legislate across 27 different sectors of the economy, taxation and even national security.
> 
> Any meeting, in Rio or elsewhere in 2014, that takes on the agenda suggested by Parminder below, will get nowhere. Not just because the issues are too diverse and there will not even be a suitable knowledge base, much less consensus on policy outcomes, but also because any such group would totally lack the authority required to address such issues. Lacking such authority, the meeting will be NO DIFFERENT from an IGF. So why do it in Rio? Why not the IGF?
> 
> ----
> Parminder's agenda
> >global public policy development in substantive areas like norms/ guidelines/ legal frameworks 
> >for privacy, net neutrality, taxation issues around cross border e-com, competition issues, and 
> >the so many other areas of public policy areas.... 
> ----
> 
> (I myself am eager to work on the "many other areas of public policy areas")

	I agree that the suggested list of issues above is far too broad, and in many cases dips into areas where multi-lateral government negotiations are actually the appropriate process, and MSH processes can hope at best to inform (like taxation). 
> 
> Ironically, here in Washington I also heard the ICANN representative talking about how the Rio meeting should address many new, "orphan" issues such as.....wait for it.....cybersecurity! Yeah, that's a problem that's going to be solved by a one off meeting with 1000 people in it, for sure.... 
> 
> I can explain this absurd position in two possible ways: first, it may be that the I* orgs would prefer that Brazil, other governments and everyone else waste their time chatting about "global public policy development" (i.e., duplicating the IGF) rather than actually solving ICANN's accountability and IANA problem. After all, we've seen what IGF has accomplished in 7 years. A neo-IGF will do the same, but might manage to maintain the illusion for governments that something new is happening.
> 
> Another, slightly less cynical explanation is that they want this Rio meeting to pre-empt the ITU plenipot, as some states still want the ITU to do cybersecurity. So apparently these people are so irrationally afraid of the ITU that they would rather push vital areas of policy into hastily thrown together and poorly designed multistakeholder processes just so they can say that the ITU doesn't need to do it. 

	Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a large extent rushing things largely due to circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance). 

	This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or misrepresenting its processes. 
	Cheers

		David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131025/d3bd62b3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131025/d3bd62b3/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t