[bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot?

[William Drake]

Hi

On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:35 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Bill and Avri,
>  
> Interesting arguments based on an assumption of significant USG Internet policy incoherence*,

Well, Avri's statement that "NSA's goals are not NTIA's goals" doesn't necessarily translate into significant USG Internet policy incoherence.  Different agencies, different missions, heretofore compatible from their standpoints.   NTIA is dealing with root, IANA, ICANN contract.  NSA is dealing with snooping, not really a names and numbers thing so much.  The latter has made the former's work much more difficult and pushed it to accelerate efforts to figure out a way forward that would play (or at least be functionally sound and cause the least political opposition) both domestically and internationally.  There's no way to know ex ante what path this will follow and whether a solution will be found or the thing crashes and burns, there are too many moving parts and cross-cutting pressures at work.  Not an easy position to be in.

Bill

> and of course you may have a deeper insight into the behaviour of the USG than others but I'm seeing the following from this quite recent policy statement from the Obama Whitehouse:
>  
> MAY 2011, Prosperity, Security, and Openness in a Networked World: INTERNATIONAL STR ATEGY FOR CYBERSPACE
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/international_strategy_for_cyberspace.pdf
>  
> Strength at Home
>  
> Ensuring the resilience of our networks and information systems requires collective and concerted national action that spans the whole of government, in collaboration with the private sector and individual citizens.
>  
> The report goes on to outline the principles/strategy being promoted by the USG including matters of governance, internal and external security, infrastructure etc.etc.
>  
> A quick read of this statement is interesting background to the discussions we are about to have in Bali.
>  
> M
>  
> *A bit surprising I would have thought given the recognition at least in the Executive Office of the long term significance of the Internet--"This world—cyberspace—is a world that we depend on every single day… Barack Obama
>  
>  
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:38 AM
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot?
>  
> Hi
> 
> On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think understanding this relies on your view of NTIA intentions.
> 
> None of us can know those, but we all guess at them based on all sorts of evidence, theories and assorted perspectives.
> 
> And conversations with the folks involved.
> 
> 
> If you tend to think that NTIA wants to hold or even increase its influence, you assume one thing - that this had to be done against their will or advice and that it is a slap in the face to US goals.
> 
> If you assume that NTIA really wants to divest control in a sane and safe manner to multistakeholder modeled governance, while seeing the Internet remain open, you assume another.
> 
> I assume the latter.
> 
> I don't think it's just an assumption.  But there are of course internal debates and countervailing pressures, so this has to be done very carefully and in a somewhat evolutionary manner, recognizing the substantial domestic political constraints.  It's not like the administration could be relishing the prospect of a campaign on Fox News etc. with the Tea Party screaming "Obama hands over the Internet", much less all the real power centers that will be nervous about a headlong dive into the unknown.  So there's a lot that would have to be done to keep this on course, and alas NTIA staff cannot even legally respond to their email at the moment, much less engage in global discussion.
> 
> 
> The NTIA is not the NSA, like most governments, outside of dictatorships, there is no agreement in the goals of the various departments.  NSA's goals are not NTIA's goals.
> 
> Fair to say, and worth remembering when making sweeping statements about this or any other government (see Wolfgang's recent note on endemic intra-ministerial fragmentation).
> 
> 
> I tend to believe in NTIA's commitment and support for the wider multi stakeholder model of Internet governance.   So yeah, them being somehow "in the mix" seems about right to me.
> 
> In other words, and to join in the prevailing marriage metaphor, I think the US and ICANN have an open marriage.
> 
> And one side seems increasingly inclined to understand the TOR a bit flexibly.
> 
> 
> And speaking of metaphors, and of shooting people in the foot, I think we should encourage the new directions and their initiators especially when they are multi stakeholder in intent, taking into account that they are new directions and still largely aspirational.  I think this is the case for  Civil Society both inside of Brazil and inside of ICANN, as well as the fragments of International Civil Society that gather in BestBits.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 14 Oct 2013, at 01:37, William Drake wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi 
> 
> On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:17 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé <joao.caribe at me.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I really can't understand how NTIA could be behind Fadi's meeting in Brasilia.
> 
> Not behind, but in the mix.  
> 
> Bill
>  

**********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131015/909c8ea7/attachment.htm>