[governance] User input to Internet architecture work

[McTim]

Hullo Ian,

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> I think from the various threads around IPv6 and user input into IETF etc
>  that we should begin to realize that there is a structural problem with
>  current Internet governance.
>
>  As Stephane points out, there is no clear avenue for user input and this is
>  needed sometimes. As Phil points out, there is no co-ordinated information
>  source for IPv6 information for managers and decision makers trying to
>  understand the implications and issues involved in transition. As Carlos
>  points out, there are lots of people who want this information in plain
>  language. And, as Suresh points out, communication of the issues with non
>  technical people is difficult.
>

A single source for information may not be as useful as the multiple
sources currently out there. Multiple sources mean multiple
viewpoints.  That is good IMHO.

I've never had any problem finding any information on v6 deployment by
using my favorite search engine.

<snip>
>  Now this of course doesn't translate exactly into Internet governance
>  because we are talking about something more loosely associated. But I think
>  what does translate is:
>
>  Structures need to evolve to allow clear processes for stakeholder input
>  from all groups into major decisions, directions, and activities.
>
>  ICANN has evolved to do this in its small area of operation, in other areas
>  we don't yet have structures and processes in place to achieve this. And
>  until we do a whole lot of things will not be as effective as they should
>  be.
>

I think there are opportunities for involvement, but sadly they are
under utilised.  Could they be improved? Certainly.

>  This is of course the problem of having no-one in charge in a whole lot of
>  critical areas. That is what I thought an Internet Governance Forum might
>  begin to address, and hopefully will in the near future.
>

Thanks you very much for sharing this with us.  Frequently on this
list, folk seem shy about sharing their vision of the future.

I don't see this as a problem, "structural" or otherwise.  I see it as
a strength of the current system.  One single body "in charge" of
"critical areas" could be quite limiting in terms of what is possible.
 For example, say there was an IGF ~10 years ago, and they were "in
charge' somehow of IPNG efforts.  If they had prescribed "backwards
compatibility" with v4 to the IETF, then many if not most of the
features promised could never be delivered.  I can think of many other
examples, but the above may suffice.

There is no "Internet Police Force', nor should there be, nor should
there be an "Internet Government", rather decentralised functions in
diverse bodies that use open, transparent, bottom-up processes, all
communicating and coordinating and cooperating together.  Much like
what we currently have, which has helped to make the Internet so
resilient and useful for so many.

In addition, I think that giving this sort of authority to an
organisation whose "Board" is a "Multistakeholder" Advisory Group
which has some not so secret 50% rule of govt representation, and the
rest of the folk are appointed by the UNSG is not the sort of body I
would choose to take on this uberpower (if I wanted this power to be
granted).

Call me a "status quo-ist if you like, I'll happily wear that badge on
this one (and no I am not talking about ***NN here, tho many of y'all
will never understand that).


-- 
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