[governance] IGF failure a threat to multistakeholder principle

[Norbert Bollow]

Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:

> Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> >> .... crossings of IPR, consumer protection and antitrust efforts
> >> - including net neutrality
> 
> > Actually, given the importance of this topic, why don't we
> > specifically ask for this topic to be given prominence?
> 
> Such broad topics are, in my opinion, likely to not converge on concrete 
> results except, and perhaps, after years and years and years.  And given 
> the alternative forums already available and the monetary fuel behind 
> some of the vested interests, the IG answer might end up being nothing 
> more than an historical footnote.

As I wrote before, I agree with you, and as I've written before my
proposal for a narrow-enough-to-be-really-productive topic is the
creation and administration of an international certification mark
that indicates that websites are accessible for persons with
disabilities.

But it seems that our "let's have some narrow topics please" requests
at least so far haven't generated sufficient support.

So the next best thing is to push for topics which will at least
result in the IGF having some positive (although possibly quite
minimal) benefit.

As I see the situation, there is a significant risk that the IGF
might end up being so much lacking in value creation that the net
result could be the conclusion the "multistakeholder approach"
(meaning the idea of including NGO representatives and and interested
internet *users*, as opposed to merely including governments and big
companies as is the practive in non-"multistakeholder" governance)
getting abandoned altogether.

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                    http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG  http://SIUG.ch
















> 
> In these early days it is important to pick topics on which people can 
> make some real progress and generate (perhaps within a year or so) some 
> concrete recommendations.  That way the mechanisms will be exercised, 
> the flaws worked out, and most importantly credibility obtained.
> 
> Again, I urge that the focus be on matters that have a very firm and 
> clear basis in technical issues.  These are far from trivial issues - I 
> suggested, for example, the establishment of procedural and 
> institutional means for end users (or their ISPs) to request and obtain 
> end-to-end assurances of service quality for sensitive applications such 
> as VOIP.
> 
> Another such topic would focus on the issue of the increasing use of 
> technologies that try to play fast and loose with the implicit social 
> contracts of using the net - these include some of the new protocols 
> that are more aggressive than TCP when experiencing network congestion. 
>   Widespread deployment of these technologies might result in a 
> class-tiered internet in which some folks get good service and others 
> get dregs.  This, again, is not a technical topic in itself, but rather 
> is a rather difficult, but again a feasible one involving many tradeoffs 
>   affecting innovation.
> 
> These kinds of topics are less likely to cause the kind of endless 
> debates that will occur if IG jumps immediately to try to become some 
> sort of super overlord of everything that in any way could touch the 
> internet.
> 
> I am already beginning to be concerned this branch of IG evolution may 
> start to look like a debate among buggy whip manufacturers while over in 
> the next county Henry Ford begins to build his automobile assembly lines.
> 
> 		--karl--
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance