[governance] Comments related to the WGIG report

[Lee McKnight]

Ian, Milton, et al,

Your comments and Karen's work with the draft are starting us toward a
viable path here, re both cctld's and root zone file change review
processes. 

But this is a cautionary note, as of course we should not assume we
will come up with just the right procedures over the weekend. Maybe we
will, more likely not. And even if we did get it right, it won't matter
without other parties buy-in. Hence my suggestion is we couch CS
language on these issues in VERY cautious language, since as Milton
noted the other day the USG is not likely to say on Tuesday after
reading CS's Monday submission: 'hey -that's it!' and let go of the keys
to the proverbial castle. Even if we are very clear in the CS statement
that change is needed. In time. So, yes we give this our best shot over
the next couple days, but the main objective is NOT to get this exactly
right by Monday.

Rather in my opinion we need to focus more in the text on how I guess a
working group of 'subcommitte A' can suggest developing an inclusive and
multistakeholder-acceptable review process which would study the
issue(s) involved in handing over the keys so to speak, hopefully this
time also with USG at the table ie in the working group, so that in X
months recommendations can be made, which over X more months can be
paraded around to the various interested parties for feedback and
refinement, which then can be put forward - to whom?   Not that folks
including people on  the list have not studied this already, just that
the process will count as much as the conclusion.  Stating that this has
to be done by Tunis is an artifical deadline, which I very much doubt
will be met.  But hey it's a good deadline to at least get the working
group formed : ).  Main objective is to pull this off without it
turining into a 2006 Congressional hearing/mid-term election domestic US
sideshow, which would naturally provoke reactions elsewhere.

We need to tread very carefully here, since it is easy to imagine how
CS can walk into a trap set by one or another vested interest, that
could indeed lead to bad results.  Look to how WGIG got spun in the
media for offering up 4 alternative models - but even if WGIG had just
offered one, the spin from opponents whispering to the media would have
been about how this UN entity was trying to dictate the future. Anyway,
assume spin will happen again, and think how statements made here could
be used against us, before this is put to bed Monday.  So some of the
current langauge which reads like a too obvious criticism of USG does
not really help, if we are really trying to get USG to sit down at the
table and sort through processes which works for them, other govenments
AND for CS. And oh yeah the business community will have - some -
serious weight to throw around here as well. Since you know the various
interested governments will be talking among themselves, and with the
business community, with or without CS. 

There is a second area we should address carefully, that is first the
statement of the European Union, which should be explicitly referenced,
and we should react to as well.   In fact, that can be used to first
defuse the overemphais on the USG/NTIA statement and incorporate an area
which Karen was asking for ie, recognizing the role of the Internet
technical community in giving us something to talk about, and oh yeah
use every day.  Specifically, the EU points to the importance of
upholding Internet first principles of openness, interoperability, and
the end-to-end principle, and I for one would hope CS would also speak
up, in favor of those basic principles.  So we can praise the EU for
identifying and supporting the principles, and pat the techies and
veteran netheads on the back at the same time.  And even the USG ; )

I'll take a crack at drafting more refined language on these points
tomorrow for insertion here and there in the doc, if my
comments/suggestions are generally in line with the rough consensus.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/12/05 6:38 PM >>>
Oops let me clarify following Avri and Milton's comments -


I'm only suggesting as regards cctlds, and that probably needs to
clarified
further anyway to some special circumstances. Governments want to be in
the
loop here particularly as regards cctlds - it's seen as a sovereignty
issue
- and if you don't find a simple way to involve them they will find a
complex way to involve themselves.


Ian Peter

>>> "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/12/05 6:11 PM >>>
In a minimalist model a GAC right of veto on root zone file changes
(to
replace USG divine rights here) satisfies all needs? Wolfgang's
clarifications are important.


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date:
11/08/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date:
11/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance