[bestbits] RE: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

Tue Nov 5 10:26:30 EST 2013

Please refer to new/old names GICCP or IGF ; )

Seriously. CIRP is dead and buried, long live GICCP and IGF!

Lee

PS: And really Suresh? Interests will jockey for influence and control? Now I am truly shocked! ; ) Or not at all. But moving discussion forward is fine. Also, how much to defer to IG sugar daddy/msh-good practice modeller (and yeah ok, also as occasional exemplar of what not to do), it is far too soon to say. Especially if the I orgs and make new baby more their own : ) Not to mention CS.
________________________________
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:31 AM
To: Lee W McKnight
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

Creating a brand new organization and inventing a governance / stakeholder mix for it from scratch sounds like an interesting gedankenexperiment, I must say.

However in practice it seems far better to engage internally with existing organizations, especially where they are already multistakeholder.

This especially goes for increased civil society participation in ICANN - in NCUC as well as in the other constitutencies where civil society members represent their own employers but would be well suited to bring in civil society viewpoints as far is consistent with their mandate .. or at the least, ensure an adequate level of engagement with civil society.

The underpinnings of MSism do exist in ICANN though different sections of it have entrenched special interests - which is not something I foresee will magically go away if either an ITU overseen international body steps in, or whether this new CIRP structured on the OECD ICCP and layered with multistakeholderism comes into place .. never mind the obvious question about whether or not different stakeholder groups wouldn't jockey for control of this new organization.

--srs (iPad)

On 05-Nov-2013, at 6:20, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu<mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>> wrote:

Well Suresh, if we think of a ICANN-msh-procedures-based/melded/funded CIRP, then that could be a different story conclusion this time around. ; )

Parminder, agreed with your

1); 2); 3); 4) Take-aways from the summit, that is not too long a list for the press release ; )

Parminder said: 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.

And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with some principles listed in  Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point.

Lee replied:  starting on 4) with the 10 Internet rights and principles doc, already vetted and widely circulated and translated, I would think CS has much to offer here. Perhaps we were not as detailed or specific as Dilma might wish re surveillance; but cs has a strong starting point imo.

Re 1) 'internet related public policy issues' a new name would be needed, there I agree with Suresh. Still, somehow I don't see continued talk of 'orphan issues' once there is an imagined home; current phraseology is just a passing phase. 2 scenarios I will throw out there are:

1) CIRP rewrite to GICCP; for 'global Internet,' rest lifted from OECD; initial $ and staff support/shared virtual and human infrastructure courtesy ICANN, I orgs, and CS.

2) Enhanced IGF, with small secretariat/global virtual reach, initial $ and staff support/shared virtual and human infrastructure courtesy ICANN, I orgs, and CS.

Now re your 2), ICANNinternationalisation, agreed. In both of my cases, the whole transition path is more credible with a further shift in the IANA contract etc, as good faith gesture on ICANN's part. IGP has already made quite speciic proposals there; admittedly unlikely to all be accepted by next month by broader CS. Although we would hope Best Bits could : ).  But at the least if we agree ICANN is also on the table and fair game for discussion in May, then that is step forward.

Finally re Parminder's 3), '(3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations.'
that is where the i orgs, icann, cs, private sector can best focus on interim msh procedures for moving ahead, then we really have something to offer/propose at the May summit.

In my opinion.

Lee

________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net<mailto:suresh at hserus.net>]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 8:57 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>&gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India, no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian bureaucrat.   And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd make it viable even if India had not repudiated it.

So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison with the ICCP is thankfully, moot.

--srs (iPad)

On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:

On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
<snip>

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.

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.

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)

Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are hearing:  zero

Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan issues home of some coherence into existence: zero

 (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.)

Lee,

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.

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.

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.

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.

And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with some principles listed in  Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point.

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.

parminder

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.

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.

If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents:

forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page press release.

Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this.

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.

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.

Lee

________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>] on behalf of David Cake [dave at difference.com.au<mailto:dave at difference.com.au>]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU<mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au<mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:

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).

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.

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.
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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Regards

David

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/695c68c6/attachment.htm>