<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony]</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>Hi Milton,<BR>
<BR>
On 12/11/07 8:27 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><FONT FACE="Tahoma"><B>From:</B> William Drake [<a href="mailto:drake@hei.unige.ch]">mailto:drake@hei.unige.ch]</a> <BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"> <BR>
> I have, as you know, written quite a bit over the years <BR>
> about the historical evolution and contemporary decline <BR>
> of the telecom regime, so I not only get the marginalization <BR>
> argument, but have made it. <BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><FONT FACE="Arial">>You are getting all defensive and prickly again, which doesn't accomplish anything. <BR>
<BR>
Tee hee, this is <I>you </I>talking? Thanks for the giggle. But the statement was neither. I just said that I get the marginalization point so you don’t need to be pedantic about it, it’s not a new thought; and that when stated as a sweeping generalization rather than made precise based on the actual empirics of different issue-areas, it’s also counterfactual.<BR>
<BR>
>It seems to me that you are making a very strong argument that Bill Drake <BR>
>believes in the importance of, and wants to get more involved in, ITU <BR>
>discussions of security. If that is the case, great. Do it! And if <BR>
>you can convince others to get involved, that's fine. My point is <BR>
>not to tell others not to do anything they think should be done, <BR>
>and I apologize if you took it that way. <BR>
<BR>
No, I was making an argument that governments and industry from around the world that can and do take actions of consequence plainly believe in the importance of and get involved in ITU, which seems a parsimonious explanation of why they spend a great deal of time and resources participating. This was in response to your totalizing pronouncement that nobody cares and nothing done there matters; I was saying, in keeping with the thrust of the thread Alex prompted some time ago, that there is in fact a world of global ICT decision making beyond ICANN, even if you don’t happen to follow it. And I said nothing about me personally wanting to be more involved, but rather that it would be nice if CS had at least <I>something </I>to say about the topic of CS inclusion at a time when a few friendly governments are trying to push that boulder up the hill. <BR>
<BR>
>My debate was about whether this particular grouping of civil society <BR>
>has the resources and expertise to become deeply involved as a collectivity. <BR>
<BR>
In fact, I said explicitly I didn’t expect much in this regard, and didn’t think much more was needed beyond a simple sign on letter supporting the initiative. Wouldn’t want to distract from the all consuming pleasures of the ICANN pissing matches that have consumed the list of late (although one wonders just how many listservs are needed for this).<BR>
<BR>
>My impression was that this was an internet governance group, focused on the IGF, <BR>
>not a general ICT policy or telecom policy group. This collection of civil society actors <BR>
>has its strengths, but it is barely able to maintain a coordinated presence in the IGF, <BR>
>and is really only tangentially connected to the nitty-gritty policy work of ICANN <BR>
>(despite your constant "if it's not ICANN who cares"? comments, I don't see any <BR>
>but a handful of these people -- except for the employees -- at ICANN meetings <BR>
>or workgroups). So if you are proposing to add ITU committees and processes <BR>
>to the group, I am simply questioning whether it can be feasible. I do _not_ question <BR>
>whether you personally can do it, and do not question that someone ought to be in there.<BR>
<BR>
I take your point about the state and focus of the IGC. But I understood the thread Alex started to be on “IG questions that are not ICANN,” at least that’s the subject line, so when security came up, I pointed out that one of the places where a lot of activity related to Internet security is happening is in Sauron’s tower here in multilateral Modor. And I noted that depending on how this activity is configured and implemented by governments and industry, some of it may indeed constitute IG. Where and when this may be true is again an empirical question, so sweeping dismissals that none of it can matter by definition just seem ideological.<BR>
<BR>
>What happens when they open the door and no one enters? <BR>
>It's irresponsible not to ask those questions. <BR>
<BR>
I don’t actually believe they’ll open the door much, so probably it’s moot. But it’s still worth making the point as a matter of principle that they shouldn’t be closed and out of synch with the rest of the UN agencies, if for no other reason than to potentially temper their exuberance a bit in designing policies and standards for NGN, security, mobile net, etc. that can be contrary to the public interest, raise hackles in the noncommercial sector, and generate post hoc opposition. <BR>
<BR>
That said, the question of participation needs to be differentiated. For the ongoing sector work, right, probably not a lot of CS groups would have the resources or motivation to go through the extant membership process and then come to Geneva four times a year for two weeks at a time (although I assume ISOC could, and probably on ITU issues there’d be sufficient agreement with many of us). Of more interest probably would be other less regular meetings, and observer status, rather than actual sector membership.<BR>
<BR>
>Would it be a great victory for democracy for one guy from this group <BR>
<BR>
Again, a misconstruction of what I was saying. A couple people responded to the thread in this manner, but I said nothing about me personally wanting to participate. I’m addressing institutional rules and the need for transparency and inclusion as a matter of principle. I’ve said the same things at a couple of OECD meetings, to as little effect, being just one person. When there’s no expressed demand from a constituency, those inside who might agree are left without a case and drop it.<BR>
<BR>
>Is ITU really waiting for our word? <BR>
<BR>
ITU is not a single entity controlled by a wizard behind the screen, it’s an agglomeration of 191 countries and if memory serves > 700 corporate/organizational members plus secretariat etc. Probably most actors don’t give a damn about CS but some seem to feel differently. At a minimum, I suspect the Swiss and Argentine governments wouldn’t mind if CS were to mumble a little support for their initiative on our behalf.<BR>
<BR>
>What follows is a long detailed list of highly technical - policy -economic issues. <BR>
>Which is precisely my point. Who in this group is ready to go toe to toe with full-time, <BR>
>paid, telephone company engineers and government ministry reps on "network security <BR>
>assessment/guidelines based on ITU-T recommendation X.805? Etc.<BR>
<BR>
Yes, but it wasn’t my point. I provided that list in response to your sweeping assertion that the ITU is marginalized and irrelevant. I’m saying there may be stuff going on worth monitoring and knowing about, from both CS advocacy and scholarly standpoints, rather than just assuming it away. The question of whether CS could and should actively participate in all aspects of this work on an ongoing basis is a different matter, and per above I wasn’t suggesting this.<BR>
<BR>
Cheers,<BR>
<BR>
Bill<BR>
<BR>
***********************************************************<BR>
William J. Drake drake@hei.unige.ch<BR>
Director, Project on the Information<BR>
Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO<BR>
Graduate Institute for International Studies<BR>
Geneva, Switzerland<BR>
<a href="http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html">http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html</a><BR>
***********************************************************<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN>
</BODY>
</HTML>