<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM,
Lee W McKnight wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt"><snip><br>
<br>
The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in
stone by the end the year. Well not the end of the year, say
December 15. Whether by the coalition of the willing, or
others.<br>
<br>
Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other
governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the
room have just 7 weeks to come up with something sensible.<br>
<br>
So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of
2014 (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary
thing...) will accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we
need a photo op to ward of the wicked plenipot)<br>
<br>
Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching
ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are hearing: zero<br>
<br>
Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like
orphan issues home of some coherence into existence: zero
<br>
<br>
(Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan
somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we could do worse
than starting with blowing up OECD's ICCP and related
processes to a global model in some mind meld with ICANN as a
the sugar daddy/cash machine to fund and to offer prototypical
msh processes for the borrowing...but has anyone advocated
that or anything in particular else? Nope, didn't think so.) </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Lee,<br>
<br>
India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is
basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over
it, since the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new
proposed 'policy development body' with the IGF. In its latest
submission to the WG on EC, India has sought separate treatment of
oversight and other public policy issues, and therefore seem to
indeed have removed the I* oversight part from the proposed CIRP -
which makes it almost identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF linkage
bonus. <br>
<br>
And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a
specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of
global body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight
issue separately through a techno-political body with a very thin
and clearly constrained role, and (3) globally accept and formally
recognise the current distributed architecture of technical and
logical infrastructure related policy making and implementation
processes. <br>
<br>
In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have
listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an
global institutional framework, and some global Internet related
principles. <br>
<br>
I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional
framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related
public policy issues (which category has been called as 'orphan
issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of
ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy
development and day to day technical operations. <br>
<br>
And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with
some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech as a good starting
point. <br>
<br>
We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over
procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit
initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov
stakeholders coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive
positions. We need to get pro-active, and produce substantive
positions towards the summit. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt">And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG
issues' ITU plenipot matters? Someone needs to spend more time
with Bill Drake and/or Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war
stories of the last several decades, to realize what is really
likely to happen there. Or not.<br>
<br>
Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like
a classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is
indeed the group hug/photo op. And a press release.<br>
<br>
If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents:<br>
<br>
forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2
page press release.
<br>
<br>
Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out
of this.<br>
<br>
Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down
to say 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we
should say it.
<br>
<br>
Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate,
attend, whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could
be 7, but remember if we are now dealing in sound bites and
photo ops, then: deal with it, and be very succinct.<br>
<br>
Lee<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000;
font-size:16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF134106" style="direction:ltr"><font
color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] on behalf of
David Cake [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au">dave@difference.com.au</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; Milton L
Mueller<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits
strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU"
target="_blank">mueller@SYR.EDU</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:medium;
font-style:normal; font-variant:normal;
font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal; orphans:2; text-indent:0px;
text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:2;
word-spacing:0px; word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
font-size:10pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">On Thu, Oct
24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake </span><span
dir="ltr" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au"
style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">dave@difference.com.au</a>></span><span
style="color:rgb(34,34,34); font-family:arial;
font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> wrote:</span><br
style="color:rgb(34,34,34); font-family:arial;
font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="color:rgb(34,34,34); font-family:arial;
font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255); margin:0px
0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width:1px;
border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);
border-left-style:solid; padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br>
<div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"></span>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). <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
position:static; z-index:auto">
It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent
of inter-governmental control of the internet
than me. However, I feel very suspicious of the
way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally uncritical
support for hasty and often ill-considered
responses. There was a Plenipot in 2010. The
Internet survived. There was WCIT in 2012. There
was no serious attempt to take over the
Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so
much rejection was really not that bad. Now we
are told we have to get all scared again and use
the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN
and the actual Internet governance institutions,
but to deal with an extremely broad agenda
merely in order to pre-empt the ITU.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Fadi
claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of
nations like South Korea) who had become more inclined
to multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the additional
impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The Montevideo
statement and outreach to Brazil etc seems to have been
prompted by a strong feeling among the I* that the
current political climate is worse than in 2010, or even
in 2012. I can't say whether their impressions are
correct, but it does seem likely that they would
strongly reject the line of argument you are putting
here. </div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>I
don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil
meeting to fix ICANN and other institutions. The
incorporation of a change in the IANA contract at least
opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for
renegotiation, I would have thought. And good.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:medium;
font-style:normal; font-variant:normal;
font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal; orphans:2; text-indent:0px;
text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:2;
word-spacing:0px; word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
font-size:10pt">
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
position:static; z-index:auto">
And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the
pro-government coalition, the WCIT results have
made it clear that there is nothing close to an
international consensus on inserting the ITU
into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and
realistic about what is happening?
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
style="white-space:pre"></span>Well, sure - but Fadi
has more contact with government leaders than I do, so
if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT,
I have no reason to doubt him either. </div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:medium;
font-style:normal; font-variant:normal;
font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal; orphans:2; text-indent:0px;
text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:2;
word-spacing:0px; word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
font-size:10pt">
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
position:static; z-index:auto">
More to the point, why don't WE try to set the
agenda, instead of letting those who run the I*
institutions do so? Why are you always reacting
to their initiatives instead of taking your own?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>We
could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked
a little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something would
emerge spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it didn't and
they perceived it as becoming urgent they started the
process themselves. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:medium;
font-style:normal; font-variant:normal;
font-weight:normal; letter-spacing:normal;
line-height:normal; orphans:2; text-indent:0px;
text-transform:none; white-space:normal; widows:2;
word-spacing:0px; word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
font-size:10pt">
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="color:rgb(34,34,34); font-family:arial;
font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255); margin:0px
0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width:1px;
border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);
border-left-style:solid; padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>
</div>
<div>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. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
position:static; z-index:auto">
I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about
ICANN in my messages. I just see a long-term
understanding of how we need to reform ICANN, a
healthy skepticism about CS being used (again),
and a determination to take advantage of
Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful initiative. I do
appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I
just don't think we need to be driven by fear. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Well,
you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but
I'll cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you
specifically, as of course you do have strong
understanding of ICANNs processes, though you do still
seem to see this through a somewhat ICANN-centric point of
view, which I still think is likely to not be so useful a
perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to discuss the
IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that
really doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what
the Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central
role might have more to do with Fadi personally choosing
to push the process along.
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><br>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
style="white-space:pre"></span>Regards</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
style="white-space:pre"></span>David</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>