<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On Sunday 03 June 2012 03:52 PM, William Drake wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:C31399AA-99A4-41DB-80DD-3F346C868E6E@uzh.ch"
type="cite">Hi Parminder<br>
<div></div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Jun 2, 2012, at 7:20 PM, parminder wrote:</div>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> In a similar vein, the IT4C statement for the CSTD meeting
also
spoke of transferring oversight from the USG to an intergovernmental
body. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is a misleading reading of ITfCs statement, but I dont want to
divert from the basic discussion here. (I will comment on it later)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
My apologies for using short hand, let me quote in full: "On the
technical governance side, the oversight of the Internet's critical
technical and logical infrastructure, at present with the US
government, should be transferred to an appropriate, democratic and
participative multilateral body, without disturbing the existing
distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet in any
significant way (However, improvements in the technical governance
systems are certainly needed.) <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Lets then get this out of the way, although if you were unclear about
certain terms in our joint CS statement if would be best if you asked
us what we meant by them rather than 'unilaterally' - and we will have
to occasion to comment on the meaning and implication of this term a
little later - ascribing them very definitive meaning of your own. <br>
<br>
You may notice that, first of all, we have separated the institutional
model for CIR/tech oversight from that for larger Internet related
public policies (aka the work OECDs CCICP does). For the later we
propose something within the UN but not for the former, ie not for CIR
/tech oversight. This has a clear purpose, and the purpose is
elaborated in the tentative proposals we have since been trying to
develop at the CSTD meeting and in the last few days in our discussions
in the IGC.<br>
<br>
This separation also takes note of the concerns that Insituto Nupef
(carlos' organisation) had with a mixed model within the UN, as
proposed by India's CIRP proposal (which you should realise was never
ITfC's proposal). In fact, and as I have mentioned in an email a day or
two back, the CIR management oversight model suggested by Carlos during
the WSIS was clearly in our mind as we drafted these sentences that you
quote. <br>
<br>
BTW, you must not fail to notice that the statement you quote from is
co-sponsored by Nupef, along with ITfC and 3 other organisations. And
you must give the credit to all these organisations that they know what
they are doing. The sentence that you quote was deliberately worded to
prepare the way for the kind of proposals that I am putting forward
now, where CIR oversight is internationalised through a non UN
mechanism, that has larger than inter-gov participative-ness, ie has
non gov members. <br>
<br>
<blockquote>"So ok, you said multilateral rather than
intergovernmental, but we know
these are synonyms. And since improvements are needed, presumably said
body would provide them, which means broader negotiated decision making
than just what the NTIA does". (Bill)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Multilateralism, strictly speaking, is the inverse of unilateralism,
(see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateralism">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateralism</a> ) and not of
multistakeholderism. A few people
involved with limited dialogue on global IG cannot themselves
completely redefine categories of political philosophy. It is against
the 'unilateralism of US' - the principle issue vis a vis CIR oversight
- that the term multi-lateral is used in our statement. It means equal
involvement of all countries. Yes, that is what we demand. And
remember
this campaign was primarily aimed at the rather much larger civil
society outside the IG realm, where, you would perhaps have noticed, it
received huge support in a very short time. The words in the statement
were primarily aimed at the understanding of this larger CS ecology,
and uses political categories as they use and understand. You would
perhaps like to dismiss the 'democratic and participative' part of the
statement as of no worthy
consequence here. However, we use it to mean the most
appropriate participation of stakeholders as relevant to the issue and
governance space, and in the case of CIR management we do think that it
is appropriate that we dont follow the typical UN membership based
model, and the membership of the concerned body has non gov
participants, and is perhaps generally made of people who have backing
of a larger constituency from the societies they come. (Details and
specific to come :) )<br>
<br>
Of course you are bristling to ask, but why not use that IG magic word,
multistakeholderism. We think what we are proposing is multistakeholder
(MS). The last sentence of the relevant para from our joint statement
speaks of
'being fully participative of all stakeholders'. For instance, we have
always
expressed great appreciation for the MS model of Brazilian Internet
Steering Committee. However, as I have often said on this list, I
continue to be apprehensive of what you and other MS adherents on this
list, and generally, in the IG space, mean by MSism. For us, for
instance, the manner
of selecting stakeholder reps is very important, and we
have been pushing for clear principles and guidelines for this (for
instance at the WG on IGF improvements). We become more than a bit
confused when some people ask for equal footing for 'everyone' in 'each
and every context', and on being questioned what models are these, how
do they work etc, we do not get any clear response. (Remember the
recent big discussion on IETF and public policy making on this list.)
MSism is the right model for us, if we can ensure specific
and strong measures against capture, especially by big business.
Despite our best efforts we have not been able to get a discussion on
this most important issue vis a vis MSism. It is in this background,
that a very large number of global and sub-global NGOs want specific
clarifications before they can unconditionally endorse multistakeholder
global
governance models, especially as they , quite suspiciously, hear
discussed in IG spaces. They would like to know what exactly is meant
here - what would be the role of, and the interplay among, different
actors. (For instance, I would never be able to get a health or 'access
to knowledge' NGO to go with an gov arrangement where the rep of a
multinational drug company will have the same status as a gov rep. It
would simply not work.)<br>
<br>
This was the context of our joint statement that
sought to catch the Interest of global civil society not typically
involved with IG but increasingly conscious of, and also concerned
about, what is happening in this area.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:C31399AA-99A4-41DB-80DD-3F346C868E6E@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>And since improvements are needed, presumably said body would
provide them, which means broader negotiated decision making than just
what the NTIA does.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, that is not at all what we mean and want. Since the part on needed
improvements directly follows one on preserving the present
decentralised nature of tech governance, we meant, and, I stress, we
mean, that the required improvements would largely come from the
existing distributed and bottom up processes. I hope that makes things
clear.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:C31399AA-99A4-41DB-80DD-3F346C868E6E@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> Am I reading correctly that for you, oversight now just
means ensuring adherence to international law established by a treaty?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, that is what oversight is to me. And this doesnt represent a
recent change in position. It was always so for me/ ITfC. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I'm having trouble squaring the two. NTIA functions + broader global
policy making through a multilateral institutions sounds significantly
broader than just ensuring adherence to international law...</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have gone to great lengths to stress that with oversight I mean
largely NTIA functions, and the + you put there is not there in my mind
and assertion, nor, clearly, is it meant in the joint CS statement. So
can we now go ahead with this. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:C31399AA-99A4-41DB-80DD-3F346C868E6E@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> If so, there might be a few seeds of convergence that
could be
watered. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is really welcome. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
No kidding…we've been arguing about this for 8 years now...<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:C31399AA-99A4-41DB-80DD-3F346C868E6E@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<blockquote cite="mid:6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> I'm not terribly optimistic about a treaty negotiation, but
there could be alternatives, e.g. an independent ICANN & global
Affirmation of Commitments on zone file authorizations...</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I do not understand what affirmation of commitments is. Can you please
explain. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Do you mean this in some rhetorical way? I'm sure you're familiar with
the AoC and the work that's been done to monitor and increase
compliance with it...<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc">http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc</a></div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">Among whom would these AoCs
be made? Are these unilateral
declarations of good intentions that have no legal basis. I dont see
how that would do. But ready to discuss. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
While in legal form it's an agreement between ICANN and NTIA, the
commitments are to the whole range of actors involved (I won't say "the
community" to avoid annoying you ;-). Imagine an ICANN in which the
NTIA role evolves toward progressively greater minimalism--and if/when
things are clearly be done properly and jitters can be
overcome—diminishes entirely and ICANN becomes fully independent, with
a host country agreement somewhere "appropriate." And it enters into
AoCs with the global community, perhaps including actors that don't
choose to participate in ICANN. For example, it swears to never
attempt to remove countries from the zone file even in times of
conflict (who knows what root zone operators outside the US would do
even now...). And so on.</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><br>
(Why are we so bothered about short or even medium terms chance of
success in laying out what we think is the right thing to do. If a
treaty is the right thing to do, lets just say that. Lets not take the
cover of pragmatism. After all what is the near/ medium term chance of
all countries adhering to human rights, or of eradication of poverty.
However we do make our positions about which way the world and its
insitutions should go independent of such assessment. Our constitution
writers wrote those lofty ideals and built institutional designs
looking far ahead, didnt they.)
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>I'm not bothered, I'm just unconvinced it's the least bad option.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My point is, whether it's zone file changes or FaceBook policies
on nudity, why can't we think a bit more expansively about
institutional options than just defaulting to centralized UN bodies
negotiating intergovernmental agreements? Why not focus first on what
needs to be done, and consider the range of possible forms that might
help do it, especially if some are less likely to meet immediate
political resistance? Why not do campaigns around specific issues, and
make better use of the IGF?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>