[governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Post mortem and next steps on IG

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

Good points and yes, wonder if there is any thought given to this- see
Milton's and my comments on the emails regarding being careful to see what
we are fixing. I wonder if anyone has ever studied the models proposed
through the process Ira Magaziner started as opposed to pulling models out
of the air. I am sure this had been done but it would be good to know. Also,
I would like to see some of the princ of the White Paper, which did come out
as a compromise from  regional consultation with gov (Singapore, EU and some
other countries were involved in that process too), bus and civil society
around the world, could be considered in models we propose.

Bottom line- I too would like to understand the postmortem and next steps
issues of civil society. This would help some of us understand how to input
into these online collaborations and to see whatinfo to uncover through our
other channels if this helps.

Meanwhile, interesting, that this methology points to the other issue Avri
raised on how civil society is working at WSIS(I think it was in ref to
something regarding the CSP etc) . The similar problems raisd by them
(irritation of new comers) ironically did manifest itself in the IG caucus
in some ways and will continue on our online collaborations if we don't work
soemthing out soon, to be most effective. 

How can we ensure a mechanism to ensure inclusive multistakeholder in the
WSIS process with governments and amongst civil society. (there have been
some work done in other quarters on this which we could learn from.) 

More importantly, is just helping others who either could not be in Geneva
or had to leave Geneva earlier for "hardship" reasons, would like to be
involved before, at and post Tunis, or even to just decide if we should go
to Tunis at all.

Laina 

-----Original Message-----
From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf
Of Ronda Hauben
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:44 PM
To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus; Jeanette Hofmann
Cc: plenary at wsis-cs.org; William Drake; Vittorio Bertola; Ronda Hauben
Subject: Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Post mortem and next steps on IG


There is a need to understand what the problem is to determine what kind of
model is needed to solve the problem.

Was there any realization that this was an issue? That it isn't just a
matter of pulling some arbitrary model out of a hat and putting it in place,
but rather of understanding the nature of the Internet's infrastructure and
determining what model is appropriate.

That is why I have been saying here is a serious need to understand the
history of the development of the Internet and the model that develops from
that history.


> When we asked Martin Boyle from the UK about the reasons why the EU 
> chose the first, he asked back: Do you REALLY believe it would be 
> possible to run the Internet without any government involvement? (this 
> is non verbatim, I don't recall his exact words) I left this meeting 
> with the impression that the EU is much more serious about their 
> proposal than I thought. This was more than a mere strategic 
> intervention as some of us suggested.
>
Interesting.

It would be helpful to consider why he said this. What he felt was the need.

I have been talking with people about what would be needed.

I think there are lessons from the development of the Internet that could
help to think through what kinds of considerations to take into account when
considering what is needed.

ICANN was formed to coincide with an ideology, rather than drawing on the
lessons from the development of the Internet.

>>> This
>>> might be due to the fact that not all EU countries had Foreign 
>>> Ministry officers participating in the discussion - actually many of 
>>> them have delegations composed of relatively technical people. So if 
>>> the level of
>
> My impression was that the larger countries had people from at least 
> two ministries in the delegation. Plus there are always non technical 
> mission people involved.
>>
>>
>> I do think there was a principles and agents problem going on with 
>> the delegations, which is part of why I expect some backtracking.

I propose that leaving the situation as ICANN, and as the US government
turning ICANN loose is the backtracking.

There is a serious problem that the world has facing it with regard to
creating a management structure that is international, public and protects
the Internet from vested interests, but which responds to feedback and has a
way to learn the problems and respond to them.

The Internet provides a way to create such a structure. This is a research
problem as well as a problem to be negotiated.

I tried to propose this to Ira Magaziner before he created ICANN. He asked
me to come up with a proposal to begin to tackle the problem and I did. But
it was ignored, rather than the subject for serious discussion and
consideration.

(...)
> From what I heard the EU has at present no intention to change its 
> proposal. This could well change of course :-)

It is good to see the EU came up with a proposal. But also Brazil and other
countries were saying that the current situation with ICANN is no an
acceptable situation.

Ronda

Below is the proposal I submitted to Ira Magaziner before the creation of
ICANN - It would have been appropriate to at least discuss it. Instead it
was was ignored.

"The Internet an International Public Treasure: A Proposal for the Creation
of a Prototype to Manage the Internet's Infrastructure"

www.wgig.org/docs/Comment-Hauben-April.pdf

Licklider advised that if you are really trying to solve a problem you can't
exclude areas to consider as that may be where you will find the solution.

_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary

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