[governance] Re: enhanced cooperation

[McTim]

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>
<snip>
> do presently). There were other contributions. For instance McTim wrote
>
>
>
> >I am.  Instead of saying " "the group which likes to call itself the
> technical community" (and business) is offering a >definition of EC that you
> don't like, please enunciate a definition that you do like.
>
> >We can't just say "that's not EC", we as IGC have to say "EC is ......".
>
>
>
> Yes, McTim, that exactly what we want to do. What about doing it at an IGF
> workshop.
>

Was this meant to be a Question or a statement? Usually a question
ends with a ?  If it was a question, then I would prefer that folk put
there cards on the table on list first, so that we can see what the
different definitions might be.  Please, I really want to know.

>
>
> And when you say, in reply to Meryem,
>
>
>
> > > Since nothing has been done on 'enhanced cooperation' (at least, as
>
> >
>
> > > far as we know from publicly available information),
>
>
>
> >I don't understand how anyone can still persist in this fiction,.
>
>
>
> I must propose that the fiction is not being created by those who are
> wondering where is EC, but by those who have unilaterally decided that what
> they are doing is EC.

Who are these people (besides me)?

I don't see anyone declaring "this or that is EC".  what I do see is
folk cooperating with the spirit of the TA, namely in the examples you
gave up thread (RIPE EC TF, ISOC asking their members in a bottom up
fashion how to respond).


You seem to suggest that those who are questioning the
> existing (non) process themselves really do not know what EC is or supposed
> to be.

What I am suggesting is that we make our views plain on that on list.
I've asked for this repeatedly, and gotten zip.


>A thing is defined both by what it is supposed to do, and also how.

I cannot begin to parse this sentence.

> Tunis Agenda is very clear on what EC is supposed to do.

It is.


 It does go over
> some amount of detail, over several paras, to elucidate this.

The words "enhanced cooperation appear once in para 69 and 2x in 71.

The need is
> first identified, and the purpose for EC is put clearly to 'develop globally
> applicable public policy principles'. Do you have any doubt about it from
> the reading of TA.
>

Yes, grave doubts, in fact, I am certain that you are incorrect,
according to my reading of para 69:

". We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the
future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their
roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and
operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy
issues."

What this means to me, as a native English speaker (but not as a as
native speaker of diplomatese) is that EC is meant "to enable
governments", not surprising since the UN process that developed the
document was largely inter-governmental.

>
>
> Are any of the EC attempts, you keep speaking about as already happening,
> moving towards creating such global public policy principles.

Well, the EC efforts I have been describing (and not just recently)
are all being done by communities who, over the last decade (or more)
have developed and used (with great success I may add) globally
applicable policy principles, to wit, those that are inter alia;

Bottom Up
Transparent
Open
Consensus

BTW, since I type these to this list so often, i think it is high time
we had an acronym for these globally applicable policy principles
already in use.  I suggest BUTOC.  Any others??  Has this already been
given an acronym?? Any Internet historians out there? If not, you
heard it here first!!


 Is so, can you
> please explain how, because I am very interested if it were happening?

From what I have seen, the examples I have given (and not just the
recent ones have been about the pre-WSIS Internet coordination groups
trying to share BUTOC with the rest of the world, and trying to
convince them that BUTOC is the way to go.

>
>
>
> On HOW this will development of 'public policy principles' happen, TA found
> it a bit premature to decide on exact modalities and is no doubt somewhat
> vague. This vagueness represents an incomplete consensus on the exact
> process, and the effort for getting this consensus has to  be kept up. So,
> TA asks for two set of processes. One to be initiated by the SG which will
> try to create a process whereby a method/ way etc for developing these
> public policy principles can take shape. On the other hand, at clearly
> another level, it also calls upon all institutions engaged with IG to work
> towards creating conditions towards helping such a method/way of developing
> such principles to develop and take anchor.
>

Well, since the institutions engaged with Internet coordination
already have such a BUTOC to use,I doubt thay are keen to switch to
something less, well BUTOCy.

last half of para 70 says:  "we call upon the organizations
responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet to
contribute to creating an environment that facilitates this
development of public policy principles."

I think (well I know) that the the organizations responsible for
essential tasks associated with the Internet HAVE been contributing to
the creation of that an environment that facilitates the acceptance of
BUTOC's
AS globally applicable public policy principles.

>
> Now, first of all I see no specific way in which all the institutions you
> say are already doing EC as contributing " to creating an environment that
> facilitates this development of public policy principles" (para 70, TA). If
> you think they are, can you tell me how?

I've sent dozens of links on this already, I'm afraid you'll just have
to look them up, as I don't have them handy right now.  One I do have
open now, is this:
http://nro.net/archive/news/continuing-cooperation.html
Which explains the BUTOC driven things I am referring to.

The nro.net  index page now has a section called "Activities in
Internet Governance", much of which seems to be in direct response to
the call for EC.  For example, the first link (NRO at ITU Telecom
World 2006, Hong Kong) in that section leads to a page which says:

"Through the Internet Pavilion, we will work with Telecom World
participants to promote a greater understanding of the existing open
and transparent bottom-up development processes of the Internet
technical community."

>
>
> Now even if they were doing so, it in itself will only constitute creating
> an environment for the 'primary purpose' of EC – 'developing globally
> applicable public policy principles' and cannot on its own, and to exclusion
> of the primary process (in fact, it is often posited in opposition to this
> TAs' intended primary process),

often posited?? by whom?

The sentence above seems to be missing a verb, but  what you seem to
be saying is that there are supposed to be 2 separate processes, one
started by the SG and one by the "organizations responsible for
essential tasks associated with the Internet", and these are both
called "Enhanced Cooperation"
and both should be "involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly
as possible and responsive to innovation."??

Is that like 2 railroad tracks, both going to the same place, but never meeting?

I find that hard to swallow, which is why I choose to stick with my own BUTOC.

 be called THE EC process. And if someone is
> calling it that, you know who is creating and 'persisting in fiction'.

is "you know who" something like "He Who Must Not Be Named"?

>
>
>
> In any case, from whichever side you see it, there is enough fiction and
> confusion around the EC concept to try to seek out some facts through an IGF
> workshop.

I doubt we will get many (if any) "facts", since it's all
interpretation at this point.

Can you please tell me what you think EC is, instead of telling me
what you think it's not? Please!


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim


p.s. are you physically incapable of bottom-trimming?
____________________________________________________________
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