<html>
<body>
Dear Salanieta and George, <br><br>
My response at the crux of this most surprising post.<br><br>
At 18:20 17/11/2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font face="Calibri">Dear
IGC,<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">As you can imagine, since Bali and in light of the
“multistakeholder” event that will be hosted by the Brazil on the future
on Internet Governance called: <b><i>"Global Multistakeholder <br>
Meeting on the Future on Internet Governance,"</i> </b>it becomes
inherently critical that we start preparing to shape the Agenda. Many
thanks to Carlos and Hartmut for keeping us informed of what is happening
within Brazil and for taking the time to translate from Portuguese to
English when the need demands. Unfortunately, there were no live
transcripts although transcripts will be provided unlike the live stream
available to the GAC community (tongue in cheek). To watch the vide
of Fadi speaking: <br>
</font><br>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157637762195684">
http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157637762195684</a><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri"> ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadi spoke about the manner
in which ICANN is going to engage in what I thought was a very mature
response symbolic of the desire to engage with communities.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> As you can imagine in the lead up to the
preparations for 2014 we as global civil society need to consolidate to
prepare. There have been discussions going on offlist amongst the
various facilitators of some of the core civil society groups about how
this is to take place where it has centered on the possibilities of a
joint framework for engagement of civil society including
Multistakeholder selection processes for some of the key positions. There
was suggestion to experiment first with the combined NomCom for the MAG
and I highlighted that this could be difficult in light of the pressing
deadlines. There may be room however for joint endorsements but I
will leave this to the NomCom Chair. At this point, I do not want to
burden our NomCom as they are working against a very narrow and tight
deadline. Whilst we are waiting for the other groups to comment on
coordinated and shared framework for engagement, I would like to propose
the following to the IGC.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Given that we do not have time nor the resources, it
has been by way of an ad hoc nature common for people who are involved in
foras or diverse communities to provide feedback on what is happening
randomly. This to a large extent happens but my sense is that we need to
be better coordinated and have different people watch the different
spaces they are in and liaise back with the IGC. I suggested that this
could be done with and through combined civil society but I think we need
to pick up the pace and start anyway whilst waiting.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">To this extent, I would propose that in the spirit
of enhanced cooperation that we use our own people within civil society
who happen to wear multiple hats to act as liaisons, even if temporary at
this point until such time where we can coordinate more permanent
representation. I feel that the IGC should have liaisons in the following
circles:<br>
</font><br>
· <font face="Calibri">Technical
Community </font></blockquote><br>
I am sorry, but I can only resent this as a deliberate and despising
aggression against the CS technical community: FLOSS voluntaries, lead
users and end-users. Sorry, I am not going to explain again and again as
to why this over simplistic short view approach is erroneous and
detrimental for all, but also comes to an architectonic end, because I
have already done so many times. <br><br>
"Global discussion with a Technical & Academic community"
(involving Telcos “in the family”) means "discussing the control of
the humanity digital so-called huge bounty among I*$ociety stakeholders
within the statUS-quo e-colonization framework". <br><br>
- This is most probably unacceptable from the WCIT majority's point of
view. <br>
- This is certainly disputable from the OECD majority's point of view.
<br>
- This is definitely unconceivable from a CS technical community point of
view.<br><br>
Not only for any HR, political, ethical, etc. reasons, but simply because
it cannot technically work. This is just not what the Internet is
designed for: this cannot architecturally scale. There are enough CS
technical community members around the world for their on-going projects
to blow this up. For years we have managed to avoid this conflict. You
are deliberately triggering it in dividing the CS stakeholders. You
propose a deliberate political move that will lead to a technical
balkanization of the internet. <br><br>
<br>
<b>We therefore have a fundamental and vital disagreement.<br><br>
<br>
</b>I fully understand that the I* $ociety's gambit is that the CS
non-technical side will strangle the CS technical community preventing it
to speak-up. This is probably because the CS technical community kept
silent until now, perceiving no real interest in the general political
blah blah and knowing that the US, other Govs, and Google & co.
procurement budgets would defeat their non-budgeted R&D and objective
reading of the Internet architecture - as they have done for 20 years.
The reality is that when the CS technical community speaks up, it will do
it with source code, i.e. building new, real life internet laws that will
most probably not initially be concerted with the
"OpenStand"/USCC/NSA technical community.<br><br>
Now, we cannot impeach your project: you can help countries triggering
the “nuclear arsenal”, what we have tried to prevent for the last
13 years (since MdR 2000). We certainly lack the budget to respond more
quickly than some nations, so it will be difficult to protect network
stability for a while. On another hand, the self organizing criticality
of a catastrophe (the mathematical term of what you whish to trigger) may
lead the world more dramatically but faster to where the technology
teleologically leads it anyway: to a people centered information society
rather than a dollar centric one. <br>
<br>
The question is the delay and the cost for the world to stabilize, if CS
supports this I* $ociety new wandering. One NSA mistake is enough. There
certainly is a need for a world preparation of a WSIS 2015 as requested
by many countries, but such a new WSIS must not be to the detriment of an
efficient, resilient and innovative evolution of the internet and of the
CS open technical command and use.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
· <font face="Calibri">Business
Community<br>
</font><br>
·
<font face="Calibri">Governments<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">The liaisons role would be to be a bridge into these
communities to channel developments of what is happening within these
communities that are of relevance to civil society and also from time to
time raise the issues of civil society or broker and facilitate the
process through which these views can be heard. If there are people who
feel they can function in these roles, we need volunteers. This is to
ensure that we know what is happening at all times.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">The IGC has two options, we can utilize a formal
process and invite calls for nominations and have a NomCom make the
selection. On another note, we can maintain the informal ad hoc liaison
process that is currently in place. My personal preference is for the
latter to allow for volunteers who are consistent and command the respect
of the diverse communities.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Given the current deadlines and politics surrounding
the 2014 Meeting in Brazil, I propose that we have <b>George Sadowski
</b>to act as liaison for us to the technical community. I am of the view
that we can have at least two to three liaisons as the Technical
Community is diverse and spread out between the ETSI, W3C, ITU-T, IETF,
ICANN, IAB, RIR etc. For now the liaison function can be limited to
the developments of the Rio engagement with room to evolve into
identifying issues affecting global public interest that civil society
might want to monitor in a consistent and cohesive manner. Whilst George
is also a member of the ICANN Board, I am not asking him as an ICANN
Board member but as a member of the IGC.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> If there are those that wish to join George in
this role, there is nothing stopping a list of volunteers from being part
of a team that condenses the issues in diverse stratas and feeds it back
into the IGC in a consolidated manner.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">As we engage in coming to the table to set the
Agenda, we need to do so intelligently and cohesively and in a
coordinated manner. This was one of the things raised in the meeting in
Bali-<br>
In the future as the IGC evolves, there is space to develop a working
group to focus on technical and policy stratas that we may wish to
organize our advocacies in. For a long while, advocacy has been happening
via individuals or groups that have pet topics and issues. <br>
</font> <br>
<font face="Calibri">Kind Regards,<br>
Sala<br>
(In my personal capacity)<br>
</font> <br>
<font face="Calibri">George Sadowski Profile and Biography<br>
</font>GEORGE SADOWSKY: BIOGRAPHY<br>
George Sadowsky is currently a member of the Board of Directors of ICANN
(Internet <br>
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and a consultant to, inter
alia, the World Wide <br>
Web Foundation and NATO.<br>
He received an A.B. degree with honors in Mathematics from Harvard
College and M.A. and <br>
Ph.D. degrees in Economics from Yale University. After spending 1958-1962
as an applied <br>
mathematician and programmer, his career concentrated on applying
computers to economic <br>
and social policy, leading academic computing and networking
organizations, and making <br>
information and communication technologies (ICTs) useful throughout the
world. In 1963-64 he <br>
introduced the use of microsimulation for tax analysis purposes in the
U.S. Treasury Department. <br>
During 1966-1970 he founded and directed the Computer Center at the
Brookings Institution in <br>
Washington; from 1970-73 he did economic research at the Urban Institute
leading to his Ph.D, <br>
dissertation on the subject of micro-analytic simulation of the household
sector.<br>
During 1973-86 at the United Nations, he supported the transfer of
information technology to <br>
developing countries. He has done work in more than 50 developing
countries and continues to <br>
do so. Among other things, he introduced the use of microcomputers for
census data processing <br>
in Africa in 1979, and he worked in China during 1982-1986 supporting the
computing activities <br>
of their 1982 Census of Population and Housing.<br>
From 1986 to 2001, he directed academic computing and networking
activities, first at <br>
Northwestern University and then at New York University. He has been a
consultant to the U.S. <br>
Treasury Department, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, UNDP, the
Swiss Government, <br>
and a number of foundations. He was a Board member of AppliedTheory
Corporation and was a <br>
Trustee of the Corporation for Research and Educational Networking (CREN)
and the New York <br>
State Educational and Research Network (NYSERNet). He was actively
involved in World <br>
Bank activities during 1996-2002 as a member and Coordinator of the
Technical Advisory <br>
Panel for the infoDev program, as well as in UNDP and USAID activities.
In 1994, he and Larry <br>
Landweber formulated USAID's Leland Initiative for providing initial
Internet connectivity <br>
for 20 African countries. He was a member of the Internet Society Board
of Trustees during<br>
1996-1999 and 2000-2004 and served as Vice President for Conferences
(1996-1998) and Vice-<br>
President for Education (1998-2001). He headed a group of ISOC volunteers
who defined and<br>
conducted the ISOC Developing Country Network Training Workshops during
1993 -2001.<br>
More recently, he was the Executive Director of the Global Internet
Policy Initiative (GIPI)<br>
from 2001-2006, which had active ongoing Internet policy reform projects
in 17 countries. He <br>
also served as Senior Technical Adviser within USAID's dot-GOV program
for the Internews <br>
Consortium, providing ICT policy assistance to the developing world. He
has served as an <br>
expert witness for litigation in the United Kingdom and the United
States. He was a special <br>
adviser to Nitin Desai, the Chair of the UN Secretary-General's Internet
Governance Forum <br>
as well as to the Chair of UN G@ID. He has served as a member of the PIR
(Public Internet <br>
Registry) Advisory Board, and he is currently a member of the ICANN
(Internet Corporation for <br>
Assigned Names and Numbers) Board of Directors He has written and
lectured extensively on <br>
Please refer to his web site,
<a href="http://www.georgesadowsky.org/">
http://www.georgesadowsky.org/</a> as well as the GIPI web site,
<a href="http:///" eudora="autourl">http://</a><br>
<a href="http://www.internetpolicy.net">www.internetpolicy.net</a>, for
additional information.</blockquote></body>
</html>