<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html><head></head><body><div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"><div>A section of civil society which should have long been repudiated and not allowed to be seen speaking for civil society in general has been a major contributor to a lack of consensus and generally divisive behavior that fragments an already diverse community. </div><div><br></div><div>Plenty of actors around who are placed to take active advantage of these differences to marginalize and reduce civil society to irrelevance. </div><div><br></div><div>So, color me unsurprised </div><div><br></div><div>--srs (htc one x) </div><br><div id="htc_header">----- Reply message -----<br>From: "Jean-Christophe Nothias" <jeanchristophe.nothias@gmail.com><br>To: "Governance" <governance@lists.igcaucus.org>, <bestbits@lists.bestbits.net><br>Subject: [governance] The Hare and the Tortoise<br>Date: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 1:42 PM</div></div><br><pre style="word-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;">In a November 29 blog, "What is '1net' to me", Paul Wilson, DG at APNIC, tells his 'history' of that new high panel launched by ICANN
In this op-ed, they are many surprising considerations presented as hard facts that are certainly valid for questioning. At least the BB & IGC lists should have a reflection on them.
One major surprise is the following: Wilson presents the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation (see ICANN announcement here) as being independent from ICANN. Why so when this panel was installed by ICANN, managed by ICANN, (paid by ICANN? I will ask ICANN on this)... It seems to be fully dependent to ICANN. Why Wilson then presents this as being independent from ICANN? A pure communication exercise? The building up of more global narrative to take things where they should go? (Where?)
A good read brings many other questions but amusingly, the comments (all of them by IGF participants) are also of interest:
First comment comes from Avri Doria:
"If only it had been introduced this way on Thursday morning in BA.
I find myself very comfortable with this vision.
One additional thing I hope develops is a space where we can recognize the interconnectedness of technology and policy. What we are still lacking is a place where the languages of both technology and of policy can be spoken without alienating most of the participants. Hopefully in this new effort we can find a way to discuss the tussle that is involved in techno-political discussions of Internet governance"
Is that so? " ...a space where we can...", ".. we are still lacking a place..." Does Avri refer to a new space (not the IGF?) that could it be that 1net be that new space?
The very same question that Jeremy Malcolm had in mind, as he is next to comment:
"Why do we need 1net to provide a kind of inter-sessional IGF process? Why shouldn't the IGF be a kind of inter-sessional IGF process?"
Avri didn't answer. But Suresh Ramasubramanian did and so came his answer:
"If the hare had not stopped to take a nap, it would have overtaken the tortoise. But it didn't, so the question is moot"
Being a child of Jean de la Fontaine, I presume I get Suresh's point - the hare is the IGF. One question though: who is Suresh's tortoise? The US GovCorp-similiCS? The non US-allies gov? The ITU?
A final comment for Wilson's blog comes from Harmut Glaser. I give the full comment to avoid any manipulative effect.
"Dear Paul,
Excellent article.
One clarification.
It's right that President Dilma at the UN speech mentioned multilateral (as opposed to Multistakeholder), but in all interviews she explained that internet governance must include governments, private sector, and civil society, and must be open democratic and with participation of all stakeholders.
regards
Prof.
Hartmut Glaser
Executive Secretary
Brazilian Internet Steering Committee"
Again, I do believe that BA has launched a multistakeholder conference. Not a conference about a multistakeholder model. BA has not predetermined any outcome concerning the model, even though any special advisor to Dilma Rousseff has certainly a clear of what this outcome might be in the end.
All of this makes me wonder:
- The 'trust' question at the forefront within the IG and other related circles, a lack of trust bringing years of effort to an end? What to do then?
- Why the IGF doesn't self-dissolve if it is so?
- Why don't the members of the IGF call for a new IGF, spinning-of from its present belonging to WSIS, instead of running after ICANN initiatives, after Brazil initiative, after...?
- Why do the diverse views do not enter an honest confrontation, and avoid to look like being good friends but aggressing each other constantly over non substantive matters?
- Why are disinformation and manipulation a constant game in a space supposed to become a model of new democratic or civic thinking and acting?
- Why don't simple things have no clear definition? Terms, groupings... After that many years.
- Why the IGF is not self funding itself, instead of expecting the hosting country, the ITU, the UN, the invisible Google et al hand to pay for that unproductive theater? What are the positive consequences for the end-user out of these years of meetings and rhetoric joutes.
- Why such a collective failure?
- Why not speaking truth to each other in this venue?
Sorry for these candid questions.
All comments are welcome to help me understand.
JC
During the week in Buenos Aires, various other initiatives and developments were announced, including latest news on the CEO's "strategy panels”, and on the new "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation”, independent from ICANN, which will release a report in early 2014, presumably in time for the Brazil meeting.</pre></body></html>