[governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

[McTim]

Hi,

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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...)

I was there too, it's a wonder we didn't meet!


>
> In this context though, the question is that of global governance
> arrangements

Do you recall there was a global governance arrangement signed at that
meeting?  It was an early example of EC (or the spaghetti ball, which
I like better than "grid" BTW).


(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.

In theory, it is, in practice, there are lots of folk who always want
ICANN to do more.  Then the same folk decry the bloated budget, but I
digress.

>
> 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.

What makes you think they are not (taken into account)?

This goes to the heart of MG query "who represents the public interest",

Over the last few decades, when folk gather for their "many nice
lunches and dinners" they have (for the vast majority of them) made
decisions, (whether about standards, numbers or names) that have been
"for the good of the Internet" for some value of that phrase.  A very
small minority represent their employers interests.

As Jeannette says the "broader public interest" you are referring to
is a fiction. It does not exist as a clearly delimitable concern.."


 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.

Well, there is always room for improvement, and things are improving,
but if all the folk on this list were as actively engaged in actual IG
processes as they are in meta-(or psuedo) IG, then we would be well on
our way.

For example, I have done a breakdown of registered attendees at the
next AfriNIC meeting for a presentation:

itc   14%
gov  25%
cs   26%
biz  35%

Is this not (nearly) the ideal MS mix?  A few more CS folk and we
would have to change from "industry led" to "CS led", especially since
I think that most of the ITC folk are CS, so from that POV, we are
already CS led!


>
> 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.

See numbers above, they ARE being converted to a new norm IMHO.

 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.

Yes, the 200k is high, but as one of the dotafrica bids told me "the
money is no problem", in other words, you show a bank the .asia/.co
numbers and they will gladly lend you the money.

ICANN says this is cost-recovery (whether they are right on their
guesses about costs or not is something we will find out in time).
Should it not be done on a cost recovery basis?

>
> 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.

ah, but you forget, WE are part of that "nongovernmental body"


 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.)

I understand that, I just don't agree that giving gov'ts more power in
re: online activities is useful, especially when it comes to
encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship.

>
> 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

That's a pretty strong statement, I think you know the arrangement is
much more subtle and weaker than that.

 --
> 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

Would it be easy? no, I think not.  Would it end up being
Intergovernmental only...am afraid that it would.

> (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?

Possible, yes.  Likely, no.  Desirable? not IMHO.  Plus the danger is
that they would (as PJS has suggested) try to oversee that which needs
no external gov't oversight.


-- 
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