[governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas?

[Guru@ITfC]

McTim seems to suggest that the 'threat to internet community' is a
non-issue - he says " In short, there is nothing "threatening the Internet
Community", that's rhetoric coming from folk unwilling to join the process
that they complain is "captured".  

The original quote on this came from Vittorio, quoting Parminder's mail:

"Quoting Vittorio's earlier comment on the discussion on IGC taking a
pro-active role to come up with IGF mandate and structure related proposals
>finding a way to implement the mandate that is not threatening to the
Internet community, and ensuring some clarity, transparency and 
>democracy in the internal procedures of the IGF."

Not trying to hairsplit here, but the comment originated from a person who
is engaged with the current IG structures. Meaning that it does seem a very
real apprehension on part of many (see also mails from Jeanette & Avri) that
changes to the current dispensation may be negative. So instead of
dismissing this fear, or the views of people who appear to want to disturb
hornets nests, it would be better to discuss the issue on the list.

My response on your comments:

"2) CIR policy is decided in an open, bottom up manner.  If anyone wants to
participate in these discussions and policy deliberations, they can".

While I appreciate the spirit of the statement, we should also acknowledge
that participation in many or most of these deliberations can be afforded
only by select populations and groups. What would be your guess on the
representation on ICANN structures of people from the developed countries
and business interests and in contrast from developing countries and
development sector within these countries?

Also the norms of these discussions seem to be set in particular manners
that are not really open (see mails from Karl Auerbach in past and current
discussions on ICANN agenda/proceedings). 

Maybe you can explain how the mandate of ICANN was decided, by what bottom
up democratic process? What were the motivations and ideologies behind such
framing? Or what do you think are the implications of ICANN finally being
subject to USG Department of Commerce jurisdiction?

The current structures are by definition de-facto, but don't seem to be
de-jure (using law in the sense of what seems to be just and fair).

"3) Creating a new forum to debate these issues without any possibility of
reaching binding conclusions seems like a wasteful duplication of effort to
me".

We are in complex new governance spaces. The clarity on how we could move
forward towards ideal IG structures will emerge as we discuss, negotiate and
are open. It would be presumption to deny the possibility of binding
conclusions, or atleast broad consensus to start with. 

As I said in my earlier mail, this kind of a perspective on whether the
effort is worth it or not, is a function of where you are situated - within
the current power structures, or outside. For those in the cold could take
the other extreme view that any move away from the current structures would
be towards democratization of the IG spaces. Maybe we need to try and locate
ourselves somewhere in between .... And keep moving.

One real danger is that people who want to negotiate a greater role for
themselves begin to think that this won't happen through dialogue since the
others are not inclined to even open up a process of discussion. That could
start the nightmarish scenario that Karl warned in his mail ... Of
stratifications and divisions in the internet and therefore of the
information society into various kinds of fiefdoms.... Of becoming cynical
of the process of dialogue and stopping engagement.

Guru

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:42 PM
To: Parminder
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; carlos a. afonso; JeanetteHofmann
Subject: Re: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas?

On 9/6/07, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> McTim wrote:
>
> > > somebody from the IANA (David Conrad?) somebody from the RIR 
> > > communities (Alain Aina?) somebody from the IETF side (Lynn St. 
> > > Amour? Brian Carpenter?) somebody from an IPv6 NGO (Jordi Palet?) 
> > > somebody from a rootserver (Paul Vixie/Dan Karrenberg?) somebody 
> > > from the CS/.org domain field (Alexa Raad?)
>
>
> Also one may wonder why so many who thought and opined (judging from their
> organizational affiliations) that CIR was not important to discuss at the
> IGF and we shd instead be discussing 'access',

Probably because it's more important?

till CIR finally came on the
> agenda despite them, are now keen to be speakers on the CIR issue (or,
> rather, others are keen on their behalf).

now it's on the agenda, I assumed that usefulness of speakers would be
directly related to their knowledge and experience in these areas.

Carlos, I can certainly suggest folk from south of the Equator if needed,
since
I live ON the Equator, I see folk from North and South.

>
> Is it that while they still think CIRs do not constitute an important area
> of public policy to discuss at the IGF, they need to be there to counter
> some conspiratorial attempts that may be made using the avenue of open
> discussions on CIRs. In this case, in line with my email on 'who is afraid
> of the IGF', lets discuss those fears and 'conspiracy designs' openly than
> through some proxy arguments in the main session on CIRs. This will make
for
> much more transparent, informed and possibly fruitful discussions rather
> than hearing on and on the assertion that CIR governance is a special case
> that needs to be shielded from public policy.
>

I have never been less than open in sharing my views.

At the risk of boring the list again, they include:

1) CIRs do not include names (with the exception of .arpa)

2) CIR policy is decided in an open, bottom up manner.  If anyone
wants to participate in these discussions and policy deliberations,
they can.

3) Creating a new forum to debate these issues without any possibility of
reaching binding conclusions seems like a wasteful duplication of effort to
me.

In short, there is nothing "threatening the Internet Community",
that's rhetoric coming from folk unwilling to join the process that
they complain is "captured".  If CS feels strongly enough about this,
there is only one way to reverse this "capture", and that is to join
the Internet community fora.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
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

____________________________________________________________
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