[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[McTim]

Dewd,

On Feb 13, 2008 8:14 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>

> We are not asking so much for reducing or removing anyone, but for clarity
> of 'naming', and this is not merely an empty semantic exercise but with a
> good purpose as we have argued. (in the last part of this email I show how
> you yourself use these terms in an unclear manner, but in manner of deriving
> a strategic 'legitimising' advantage)

I am using other people terms. I don't know whose terms they are or
where they came from (other than the opinion I offered yesterday).

I don't speak for anyone other than myself, and you (or anyone else)
telling me that I am using certain terminology to try to gain a
"legitimising advantage" is complete and utter bollocks.

>
> And if you think it is a useless exercise to consider the matter of
> technical community representation it may be of some significance to note
> that this discussion is also going on within the MAG (pl see the details of
> MAG elist deliberations at
> http://intgovforum.org/AGD/AG_Discussion_Thread.pdf ).

Fine, I will read it... OH, LOOK
(Writer E)
.
.
5. Writer F's post, and Writer J's echo, though bothers me a lot. By
reverting to the static UN
document written in Tunis, I sense that they deny the possibility of a
4th stakeholder group
which I characterize (roughly, I admit) as the "technical community."
Writer F, I do not know if I
understand your position accurately, but my current understanding
prompts a reaction so
strong that I will put it in capital letters (without the customary
"yelling" implication):
ANY ATTEMPT TO DENY THAT THE TECHNICAL INTERNET COMUNITY IS NOT AT
LEAST AN EQUAL STAKEHOLDER IN THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE
DISCUSSION MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS.


(Writer M)
"While the debate is interesting, I think we are making more of this
stakeholder issue than is
necessary. Now that we have been reminded of Paragraph 33 of the WGIG
report, there
should no longer be any argument that the internet technical community
must be represented
in the AG.


(Markus Kummer)
.
.
.
"The academic and technical communities

Several comments recalled the history and Writer H reminded us of the
last phase of the
negotiations ahead of the Tunis Summit. I would like to echo these
comments. In WSIS-I, they
were not identified as stakeholder. The academic and technical
communities (i.e. the
institutions that developed and run the Internet) affirmed themselves
in between the two
phases of the Summit, in particular during the WGIG open
consultations. They made the point
that many of them are not-for-profit institutions, with the objective
of working for the public
good, and that therefore they are distinct from the private sector."

Since MK uses the term "technical community" I think I am in good
company.  Is he also trying to "legitimise advantage"?

 The discussion also
> goes into examining the meaning of this term. If MAG can discuss this issue,
> IGC as a CS deliberation and advocacy group has even better reasons to
> discuss it. Avoiding these discussion serves the status quo, which is as
> political a stance as persisting with them.
>
> > 2) If the IGC does recommend to the MAG to remove the 4th stakeholder
> > group, they will ignore this recommendation (and laugh at us).
>
> Have you heard the laughter when they hear about some CS group's fantasy of
> completely ungoverned and unregulated Internet. Since when has CS started to
> be mindful of being laughed at. Pl give some more cogent arguments.
>

See "F"s all caps re: mockery.  I have rec'd several off list messages
re: removal of 4th stakeholder group, which is what i based my
"laughing" comment on, to wit:

"unbelievable"

"This all verges on the inane."


> > 3) If we do #2, we risk alienating the "Internet technical community"
> > (this is not my term BTW). If they have so much "power", why won't
> > they just "take their ball and go home".  They don't need the IGF/IGC,
> > but the IGF certainly needs them.
>
> I am interested to know whose term is it, and what it is supposed to mean.
> 'Who needs whom' is a vocabulary of power, and I don't want to engage with
> it. Though it throws subtle suggestions about whose side one may be on.

I am on the "side" of spreading the edge of the network, especially in
Africa, where I live.  In my experience, it's the Internet technical
community (ISOC/NSRC/AfNOG/AfTLD/AfriNIC, et. al) that does this
better than any other CS/Gov't folk. Of course, it's the private
sector that puts in the cash and builds out the networks.

On
> the other hand I do not know how you get this impression of such great power
> of these institutions - don't forget governments are still by far the most
> powerful group. Do you have any idea what US gov can do in day to ICANN?


I am not attributing power to these organisations, you are (I didn't
use the word first in this thread, you did).

Here is what you don't seem to understand.  We are, in this thread
talking about the makeup of a group that may in future make decisions
about agenda, logistics, etc about the IGF, which AFAIK, has no
decision making "power". Meanwhile, there are other groups that you
and most others on this list REFUSE to join, who are actively busy
making IG policy decisions.

I submit, (and not for the first time) that if anyone on this list
would like to have any real decision-making ability on these issues,
you MUST (and that is in the IETF usage of the word) join the
bottom-up CS processes that are completely open, transparent and
effective in promoting the public interest in Internet policy.

> Now, if they don't do it, this is because of existence of some intricate
> network of soft powers. We have to be strategic, but CS in its submissions
> will be as little afraid of alienating government (US gov, for instance) as
> the internet governing establishment.
>
> > If we want enhanced cooperation, we as CS IGC have to start
> > approaching the level of cooperation shown by the Inet community.
>
> I am very conscious of the level of cooperation given by ICANN plus to any
> process other than that which is controlled by it. And if they have at all
> participated, then under what pressure.

IMHO, you see this completely backwards.  I don't think that
ICANN/ISOC/NRO/I* feel any "pressure" at all.  From what i see them
doing on EC (which I have listed briefly in previous posts), they are
doing this as an opportunity to bring more folk in to participate in
the bottom of the bottom up processes, to educate folk on how to get
involved, etc.

 The mere inclusion of CIRs as a
> discussion agenda is a recent example. BTW, thanks for advising IGC on
> behalf of the internet community.

Always glad to help, but as always, i speak for myself, and only give
my opinions.

>
> Here again I am at a loss to know if this 'int community' you refer is the
> user community (in which case, I do not understand what cooperation do you
> speak of) or the 'internet tech community' (as per your definition
> yesterday) in which case why do you keep using the term inter-changeably
> even when you had clarified that Internet community now includes all
> internet users and 'internet tech community' is described by you as the set
> of organizations listed by you. Do you not think they are very very
> different groups. Doesn't the use of the term internet community
> interchangeably with the set of these organizations cause huge problems.

huge, only in the manner of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"


> What is the purpose for persisting with this confusion, when it can be
> avoiding by some means we are suggesting here. Does this 'confusion' not
> give some strategic advantage to some sections/ groups?

If this is the case, then let's put in the draft some text lambasting
MK for his use of the term!

>
> So once again, to ask a specific question, pl clarify what do you mean by
> the ' the level of cooperation shown by the Inet community'.

Look in the archives, with the keywords, "EC, McTim, ITU, ICANN, NRO,
continuing cooperation". You will find tha mail where I gave a short
list of examples (I recall not getting any feedback from that mail
tho, which is curious).  Perhaps the list didn't get it, in which
case, I am quoting it in it's entirety below my sig.  I think I've had
my say on this thread, so to post further on this topic would be
pointless in terms of advancing the discussion.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim





On Nov 18, 2007 9:46 PM, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:
<snip>
>
> And where is this "enhanced cooperation" program?

It's a process, not a program:

71. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN
Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of
the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their
respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with
legal process, and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant
organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation
involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and
responsive to innovation. The same relevant organizations shall be
requested to provide annual performance reports.

As Wolfie said on this list:

"In Meissen at the end of the Summer School on Internet Governance, we
developed recently a formula for enhanced cooperation (Sigma EC3)
which means that "enhanced cooperation" as "undefined" in the Tunis
Agenda can be seen as a bottom up management process where elements of
enhanced communication among players, enhanced coordination among
instiutions and enhanced informal and formal cooperation among
involved institutions are creatively interlinked. New forms like joint
committees, liaisons, dynamic coalitions are emerging on a
multistakeholder basis. The only thing which is still underdeveloped
is the intergovernmental component of EC3"

So it's not an entity with a secretariat, meetings, travel, etc.

I see the process in many places actually, it is happening, it's
increasing, and it's helpful.  Here are some examples from places
familiar to me:

http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2007/35.html

So the ITU is enhancing cooperation with ICANN

http://nro.net/archive/news/continuing-cooperation.html
http://nro.net/governance/index.html
http://nro.net/governance/itu-exhibition-info.html

The NRO is is continuing/enhancing cooperation with IGF, ITU and the
many thousands of other organisations that are interested in
numbering.

http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-15nov07.htm
http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-14nov07.htm

ICANN is continuing/enhancing cooperation with IGF, ITU, the AU, the
NRO, etc, etc.

http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/071114pr_fellowship.shtml
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/071112pr_ampassadors.shtml

ISOC does liaison work with all of the above (plus others via new
Regional Bureaus), plus reaches out to  bring folk to IETF/IGF
meetings that otherwise wouldn't (be able to) go.

Giganet is part of it, according to this:

http://www.igloo.org/giganet

"(4) facilitate informed dialogue on policy issues and related matters
between scholars and Internet governance stakeholders (governments,
international organizations, the private sector, and civil society)."

and this:

http://www.cipaco.org/article.php3?id_article=835).

"Since then, the discussion within the academic community has proposed
to initiate an independent academic network for Internet Governance
research.

Such a network, according to Kleinwächter and Ang, should not be a
single "coordinated project" but a platform for "enhanced
communication" both among researchers themselves and between the
academic community and non-academic stakeholder groups to encourage
multiple research projects. Ralf Bendrath from the University of
Bremen presented a paper where he outlined key elements for such a new
network, including proposals for procedures, structures and substance,
membership criteria and objectives. "

Not to mention all these other sites/orgs that are new or newly
speaking to each other.

http://www.wsis-gov.org/igf-sites.html


>Can we participate to it?

Of course, but if one is determined that it doesn't exist, then
participation will be more problematic I think.

>We all know the answer.

I submit that you only think you know the answer, not being rude, but
it's very obvious to me that's EC is in the milieu, not a
place/building/conference/separate program.   If you are looking for
some top down thing from the UN SG, well I doubt you will get it.

--
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