<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Thanks to Wolfgang Kleinwächter for this delightful piece, more than that - artful, graceful, a key history for next thinking and a pleasure indeed! Thanks.</div><div><br></div><div>May we also consider some alternative 'interpretations'?</div><div><br></div><div>For instance, from the piece -</div><div><blockquote type="cite">A new awareness among governments about their role in ICANN emerged
after the 2nd phase of the UN World Summit on the Information Society
(WSIS) which, more or less, recognized and strengthened the ICANN model.</blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>In fact, the WSIS summit process, supposed to focus on ICTs for development, was hijacked by a struggle, initially between the US and the rest of the world, for 'control of the Internet.' This transpired from practically the beginning, even during the PrepComs for phase one.</div><div><br></div><div>If we take a broader, longer historical view, on the contest - ITU as responsible, vis-a-vis the Internet, versus a liberalized approach championed in the US -, that struggle had been well under way before WSIS even emerged. WSIS, from the early stages, only presented a platform, seized for ongoing volleys in the matter.</div><div><br></div><div>Yes, states that previously had not had their consciousness raised on the subject then began to put the matter more forward on their radar. But the states who cared about the question - among them, some of those powerful in their regions - were already active; WSIS became the grounds to take the conflict next steps.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>As to the larger issue(s) at stake, for instance high noon in Singapore (but we can't ignore, noon in Singapore is only one marker in a long time series, not just a moment 'now') - let's break this down, into three pieces.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>1 As said, the contest, long at play, has been, 'who is in [some] driver's seat.' For the Internet. Power, and where it lies, are always part of questions in stakes such as those here. Even when lambs and lions may make quarters together for some period.</div><div><br></div><div>Will states really feel comfortable, going down the road, with, as the piece describes, a:</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">private sector leadership model ?</blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>The piece notes,</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; ">If the GAC would move into a position to dictate to the ICANN Board what to do, this would mean the end of the multi-stakeholder model</span></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>ICANN is not even the central locale, wherein this (fundamental) matter will be resolved. As events the end of last year made clear, other vectors, in international affairs - non-private - have the long-standing questions front and center, of who will be responsible.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>2 But let's take up the case, that ICANN be considered for locus, to handle Internet governance on its topics. As the piece says, as:</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">an internationalized mechanism as an experiment and an innovation into the political landscape to preserve the bottom-up dynamics of [ ] Internet development</blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>Where multi-stakeholderism is a cornerstone innovation, again from the piece,</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">Multi-stakeholderism can be best describe[d] by a circle. In the multi-stakeholder model there is no formal hierarchy. All partners are needed and have to make a contribution according to their specific role. There is an interdependence among the various stakeholders. One can’t live without the other.</blockquote></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>2a This and other such descriptions, IMHO, lack actionable substance - there is no 'there' there. While most admirable in aspiration, the pronouncements so far on multi-stakeholderism do not get beyond aspiration. The ideals are lofty, but devoid of operable particulars. For outcomes, at least IMHO, there must be some substance, both as to an outline for a new arrangement, then concrete particulars for roles, process et al. - but most especially, something agreed to, or that can be agreed to, by the usual suspects.</div><div><br></div><div>Bill Drake, in the WSIS Forum just finished, convened a <a href="http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201105forum/index.html">discussion</a> that seemed aimed to engender much-needed quality dialog on the subject (have not had a chance to listen, but will surely do so). Until there is some meat on those bones, those who have an eye can see why individuals, in relevant positions, will not be prepared to hand over serious authority to such an arrangement. And why other venues will likely decide the outcomes, which may eventuate in yet 'other venues.'</div><div><br></div><div>That is so, certainly and most particularly, when one main venue for multi-stakeholderism has persistent difficulties making its own machinery work. Anyway, as repeated observations about IGC itself, on the list, would indicate. IGC would - otherwise, one would think - be necessary as showpiece and be 'exhibit one' for the 'ism.'</div><div><br></div><div>Fortuitously, Wolfgang Kleinwächter begins to address just this need, in the recent response (today 25 May) to Divina Meigs' e-G8 reporting:</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">Probably we have to re-mobilize and re-vitalize the WSIS working methods among CS. ... what we certainly need is a more formalized structure and more communication and coordination among the various activities to speak with one (diversified) CS voice. This includes a clear understanding what CS wants to add to the process, what the CS wants to achieve and what our priorities are.</blockquote></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>2b Continuing with the third item. The 'high noon' piece speaks of,</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">an environment of mutual trust</blockquote><br></div><div>It points to the objective:</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">putting aside individual interest and serving the public</blockquote><br></div><div>What are the facts, as we consider if ICANN may be the paradigm for such Internet governance?</div><div><br></div><div>Despite all pretensions to the contrary, ICANN has served narrow interests, particularly the financial interests of that small handful who provide much of its funding. The topic is usually taboo. But more than one of those at the very core of the ICANN ecology plainly acknowledge this reality. The organization finds ways to change policy, toward final stages, in ways that favor the tiny handful of incumbents, generally from the West, who provide its funding.</div><div><br></div><div>This self-dealing is the very antithesis of 'public service' - this is self service, which only disadvantages the rest of the world. To see the dynamic in some relief, we only have to look to recent uprisings in the Middle East. ICANN is corrupt.</div><div><br></div><div>In the end, such an ICANN miserably fails any test for trust or even-handed public service. Whatever ideals might be served, by multi-stakeholder visions for a future, they come crashing to the ground in this ugly reality.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>As it happens, this topic brings up, from last year's end, what was supposed to complete, as a second installment, a report re the enhanced cooperation vector. So hopefully, that may now find time for completion.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Again however - thanks for this contribution, this High Noon piece. It is a pleasure. And as we see the piece offers, itself, to engender dialog.</div><div><br></div><div>David</div><br><div><div>On May 22, 2011, at 4:26 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>FYI<br><br><a href="http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/05/18/high-noon-in-singapore">http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/05/18/high-noon-in-singapore</a><br><br>wolfgang</div></blockquote><br></div><br></body></html>