[governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

[Mawaki Chango]

McTim an all,

Thanks for gladly taking up the question I addressed to Wolfie ;) and for
the info you've provided in that regard.

I recognize those initiatives and I applaud them (I myself was lucky enough
to attend the AfriNIC meeting a few years ago while I was in Maputo, and
could see a vibrant community with a large range of participants at work,
including, eg, Minister Venancio Massingue then Vice-Rector...)

In this context though, the question is that of global governance
arrangements (as related to the draft on EC, the alternate proposal... even
the raison d'etre of this caucus.) I know you don't like those, but alas
they exist and make decisions that impact a lot of people, at least those
people who want to get involved at that global level are saying so. So they
try to organize and get involved at that level. I'd completely agree with
you if, say, ICANN was only a GIR (global internet registry), that is, the
global counterpart of RIRs, and was not doing much more than technical
coordination. But that unfortunately is not the case.

So I'm not religious about gov't participation, and am not advocating it for
the sake of it. The most important question for me is this: if, as a result
of your function, global policy is made which has far reaching implications
and impact beyond the members of your trade association, then it makes sense
that you are asked deliberately and consistently to take the legitimate
concerns of those other stakeholders into account. How best to achieve that,
is where I see differences, unless you disagree on the previous statement.
You (as well as many others) seem to think the status quo works fine, while
I (as well as many others) am not satisfied with it.

I certainly do not want gov'ts to dictate their traditional rules for IG,
let alone at global level. I concur with all the issues you've mentioned
about gov't management, and do not forget that before the mobile boom in
Africa waiting time for connection to fixed phone could last as long as a
decade. Who, in those conditions, would advocate for gov'ts being in charge
of management and operation? Not me. Instead, I'd like more African gov'ts,
just to take their example, converted to new norms. Many of them still don't
even seem to understand that in the world we're living, it is part of their
duty (and it should be in their interest) to enable local businesses to
grow, to seek more opportunities for them and even promote them overseas.
Instead they keep fighting the last battle, or the one before the last.
etc...
Problem is, I do not see how ICANN's reported $200K just to apply for a new
gTLD is any better for potential applicants in Africa (and in Latin America
and large parts of Asia, etc.) than the narrow-minded tax policies of their
government. The effect is the same: both are taking away business
opportunities, from the majority of the user populations, mind you, and
keeping them in the hands of a few. Neither is acceptable. I would like to
see flourish in Africa more entrepreneurs like yourself, McTim, I'd like the
playing field to make it possible if not easy for them to rise and become
regional and even global Internet domain name Registries, too. For that to
happen we need to work on both domestic and global policies.

So here we are, not simply with a GIR but a nongovernmental body that
nonetheless has the power to make that kind of over-reaching rules for
everyone else. Then, until the day I might be convinced by the decisions and
actions of those nongovernmental global governance arrangements that they
are heeding and responding to my concerns, meaning the concerns of people I
come from and those of other people like them (IMHO this is about fairness
more than anything else), I might find some sense in bringing gov'ts in. Not
because I want any one set of actors to dominate the process, but for each
one to keep the others in check, and to increase the diversity of
perspectives around the table. After all, if only they're willing to play
along (or to be smart) national govts are more likely to speak to their
domestic concerns than many of us here and more than a global body such
as ICANN. (So yes, some people may support the formal participation off
govts not because they're in love with the latter, but as a pragmatic move
to enable a more balanced outcome in their view.)

To finish, almost all govts around the world have signed the UDHR. I know
many still violate them. But there is an active global citizenship using a
number of mechanisms to call them out, along with democracies that may be
supporting them. At times in the past, that even led to sanctions and
embargo. In the case of the Internet, maybe except the US, not a single one
of the other countries has the keys to the whole (logical) infrastructure --
so Internet will be functioning whatever they do doesmtically. In that case,
wouldn't you think it'd be even easier to get them onboard of a common
framework and instrument (UDHR style) setting up norms designed

- precisely to curb the heavy-handed regulation that we are decrying at home
(partly by a process of acculturation to new norms, as they work together
and need to reach rough consensus with other players all over the world),
- to ensure delibarate and multistakeholder decision-making in these
matters, the outcoms if which they will all be subject to,
- demanding best efforts at all levels of decision-making towards a fair
hearing of all stakeholders while being more broadly civil
liberties-friendly?

Again, all that away from management and day to day operation issues - isn't
that possible?

For ma part I think on the one hand that chances of achieving the
above are reasonable enough, and on the other current nongovernmental
arrangements doing much more than technical coordination are frustrating
enough for even a pragmatic progressive like me to advocate for that third
path.

Best,

Mawaki

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:07 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/48b42518/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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