[governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

[McTim]

Mawaki,

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Wolfgang, so in those examples of progress on EC you gave, where is the CS?
> Is the implication that in those formalizations of bilateral relationships
> between organizations, ICANN carries the voice of CS? Or is something in the
> works to bring the public party CS (ie, NGOs and their coalitions such as
> IGC) into those arrangements?

My answer to this is that there are hundreds of MS CS bodies currently
involved in actual IG work (not just ICANN), and it is in and amongst
those bodies which other CS groups must become involved.  The "web"
that Wolfie mentioned has been in existence for ~2 decades.  It is
becoming more formal (and larger) with every MoU signed.

Here are just two examples from the numbering world, with which I am
most familiar:

http://www.afrinic.net/corporate/MoU-AAU-AfriNIC_2009.pdf

http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/24351/isockolkata-apnic-mou-sept2010.pdf

>
> McTim, I couldn't even believe that you went there when I read your quoting
> of the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace.
> You certainly don't believe that it still decribes anything near the reality
> of government role and capabilities vis-a-vis the cyberspace *today*, do
> you?! If you don't, as I'm inclined to believe, then I'm trying to
> understand what else is being communicated here. (See below my commentary
> about the whole anti-government slogan.)

No, governments have been claiming sovereignty over the Internet in
their geo-boundaries (and sometimes beyond) steadily for several
decades.

Here in Kenya for example, the gov owns significant stakes in the 2
largest telcos, licenses the IXP (I think the only place in the world
where an IXP is licensed), licenses and taxes the ISPs, has veto power
over decisions of the ccTLD,  Makes the submarine cable operators pay
to land here (and owns a significant stake in one of the sub cables),
regulates the Internet sector heavily and in general plays the part of
plaintiff, defendant, judge and jury in many disputes.  It is this
heavy handed gov't involvement that I find objectionable.  They would
also like, (at least it's the regulators position) to be in charge of
all CIRs within their borders.

My intent was to provide some historical context and point out how far
we have come from that idealised POV, which I believe empowered CS.

>
> I read Parminder's "counter-proposal" (just to distinguish... or "alternate
> proposal") as a possible detailing of the last option under paragraph 2 in
> the "Second draft statement on enhanced cooperation" which started this
> thread:
>
> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
> development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in
> its respective role.

I think we saw during WSIS that creating a new institution is
difficult.  We have a new institution called the IGF, that was hard
enough to build.  I see no need for a new one, rather, let's work with
what we have, as there are many opportunities for CS involvement that
need to be realised.


>
> Now some may prefer not to commit to a specific preference or set of
> preferences (and it seems like that's what the proposed draft is doing,
> limitting itself to the broad level description or to the listing of all
> different types/models one can reasonably think of) - while some others may
> want to indicate a specific preference or set of preferences with the most
> likelihood to foster a progressive agenda.
>
> I would rather support the latter.

Do you think we can find consensus on which model?

>
> That being said, Parminder has written either too much or too little :) By
> that I mean I'm not sure whether it is necessary to get to the detail of the
> exact composition/membership etc, in this statement. If that were to be the
> case, then we would need to work a little more on that first rough
> counter-draft as he himself has acknowledged. For example one major
> reservation I would have is to avoid making it a government-led model (first
> rows for governments, folding seats for the rest.)

Agreed.

And this is less
> dependent on the distribution of stakeholder representatives in the room
> than the rules governing their interactions and processes.
>
> ***
> Re. the anti-government/state utopia:
>
> Now whether we like it or not, states are in our midst - they are IG
> stakeholders and powerful ones. We still heavily depend on laws they make
> and enforce. And gone are the days when we could think of the cyberspace as
> an island completely isolated from the world where states rule - which
> also happens to be the world where actual users and providers (outside the
> screens and servers that give live to cyberspace) live and own the
> proprieties involved in their subsistance. Now you can choose to keep on
> believing in your Declaration which IMHO is based on the equivalent of the
> "state of nature" of the cyberspace, or you can try and work out a "civil
> state" that would guarantee as many as possible of the ideals included in
> the initial Declaration based on a clearly defined and agreed upon regime of
> rights and responsibilities.


We already have such a "civil state".  Pretending that it doesn't
exist does this Caucus no good.  For example, look at the participants
for the next AfriNIC meeting.

http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-13/index.php/registration-closed/participants-list

Even though it is in J'Burg, I see no APC folk in attendance!! Why is
that??  I know APC folk are interested in Internet numbering issues,
having commented on them at the IGF.

Instead we have folk such as International Foundation For African
Children (IFAC) and CIVICUS  (World Alliance for Citizen
Participation) coming, which is great and we need to encourage more CS
groups to come to the table.

Can you see all the gov't reps attending?  This is the result of the
outreach done by the RIRs and brings them to a CS built table.  At the
last ARIN meeting, gov't reps were (for the first time that I can
recall) putting their hands up (for or against) the various proposals,
not as individuals, but as gov't reps.

This is MSism in actual IG.  My concern is that we as a caucus do not
want to do actual IG, rather we want to just talk about it ad nauseum.


> This is like repeating the exact same flaw that you (McTim, implicitly at
> least, but also Karl and a few others) were pointing to in the post about
> getting rid of the ICANN's DNS).

Wasn't me.  IIRC, I simply pointed out in that thread that the time
has long since passed to oppose a massive expansion of gTLDs.

Here it goes: governments can do very bad
> things, therefore let's get rid of governments (from the cyberspace... for
> the time being, I guess.) Yes, governments can do very very bad things. But
> they will do them anyway, behind the curtains and for the sake of their
> particular interests of the moment. There is an African proverb that says
> (roughly remembered and translated) something like: if you put the witch or
> the malevolent in custody of a good, then they will be less likely to harm
> that good... Gee! what a miserable transalation, which does nothing to help
> the natural tendency that some may have to mock an attempt to resolve global
> governance issues with an African proverb about witches, does it... but I'm
> sure with a bit of benevolence, you'll get my drift. The wisdom is that
> putting the potential source of evil under watch, in broad day light, where
> it can be called out to account if something goes wrong with their
> responsibilities might just be a more effective protection/defense.

Many gov'ts already do terrible things vis a vis the Internet.  We saw
that first hand in Tunis, no? (The Tunisian gov't treatment of
protest).  We see it daily in censorship and persecution of bloggers
to give just one example.

Do you think that gov'ts will give up sovereignty (their ability to
act badly within their borders) to a Global Internet Council (or
something akin to it)?  I very much doubt that will be the case.

I can't believe that we as a CS group will actively encourage MORE
gov't involvement in IG, and not less!

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t