[governance] Framework convention

[Veni Markovski]

Alejandro,
Karl's statements are based on his views, not on truths or facts. He is
coming into this discussion with an opinion, not with questions. The purpose
of a discussion is to reach the truth. But you can't reach the truth, if you
already have an opinion, and you believe this is the right opinion (i.e.
"truth").

There are several facts, upon which a discussion may be formed, but -
unfortunately - they are not enough for people, who have different agenda.

I see that people who are left outside of a solution, are sometimes getting
angry at this fact. I don't remember who of the people writing here (don't
want to state a fact, which is not correct, but it was someone around
Milton's Internet Governance Project, MIGP), was complaining orally or in
writing (again, don't remember well) that the Advisory Group to the IGF is
not a good group, unlike the WGIG. The reason for these complaints? There
was only one person of the MIGP in the Advisory Group (sic!).  How was that
possible? Why only one? Where is the justice to have at least three of the
members of the MIGP (http://internetgovernance.org/people.html) ?

So, what we have here is very simple, and it's good to put down the facts,
and not make the conclusions:

1. The IGP (and similar projects, I call them IGPs) exist only because a
discussion on IG exists. Remove the discussion, and the IGPs are not going
to be needed. (So, do you think they... er.. the discussion would
disappear?)
2. There's no statement on the web site as to who is funding this projects.
Let's see the MIGP  - one could found a file (
http://osp.syr.edu/highlights/FiscalYear2006/FebruaryHighlights.xls), where
it says that Milton has received $ 87,500 from the Ford Foundation for that
project, but nothing about the rest of the $ 170,000 rumoured to have been
awarded to the project only by the Ford, and nothing about other donors?
3. People are building their careers around the Internet Governance;
therefore the subject will not disappear - ever. It's a process, which those
people have interest to continue as long as it is possible.
4. ICANN is the only working organization in the field; it has started as a
project of the US government (can you believe that this would have happened
with some other governments, which would volunteerly give away the Internet
to the private sector?). It made possible the existence of all these
IG-related projects and questions. ICANN has a lot of history with people
like Karl and Milton - and some of this history is bitter, which one could
find out even today in some of the e-mails.
5. The governments were not interested in "governance" of the Internet until
the WSIS - 2nd phase (oh, and btw, there was no one from our list in the
small ad hoc working group that solved the problem in the last PrepCom in
Dec. 2003, just before WSIS-1 in Geneva. I can say that, as I was there not
only as an observer. http://www.isoc.bg/news_en.html#kummer).
6. There is - so far - only ONE government which has solved the issues
around IP addresses / DNS by law, and that's the Bulgarian government.
ISOC-Bulgaria made that possible, together with Jim Demspey and George
Sadowsky, way back before the WSIS, and way before I even run for the ICANN
board. The very fact that no one of the many supporters of the IG debate has
managed - or may be even tried? - to push their own governments into solving
these problems, shows that the interest is to keep the problem open.

I could continue on and on, but before I do that,
I'd like to hear interests, stated, and posted, so that we know who is who,
and not guess what is indeed behing someones' words.


veni


On 4/22/07, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
>
> Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
>
> > your posting reaches a level of offense, bias, and falsehood, and is
> > based on so thin a basis of qualifications of yours to emit it, that
> > civil response becomes an exercise in restraint. Allow me to exert it.
>
> Falsehood?  No, what I said is quite true and has never been
> contradicted by concrete facts.  You offer none.
>
> Bias?  Truth is not biased.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070422/ddf729bd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070422/ddf729bd/attachment.txt>