[governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

[Mawaki Chango]

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 5:36 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>

I think at this point we understand our mutual differences, so I find it
unnecessary to carry on arguing my point... I guess some things just never
change ;) Bottom line, you sound more hopeful than I about private actors
solving all/most of the problems with technical specifications, while I am
obviously more hopeful than you about the governments' *potential* also to
do the right thing by their people, as long as they aren't left to their own
devices. At least they can bring to the table relevant issues that you,
technologists, are too busy (too fascinated by your toys? ;)) to bother
with, and they might help reach better decisions on those. Anyway, I gather
none of us means to exclude the other party from the process (and I
certainly don't want to let any one party/mindset dominate the process).

Just to answer your questions...

There are different ways of doing cost recovery, particularly for a
nonprofit global service. The laws of economics may be necessary and
universal (at least some believe that), but economic development is an
organic thing. Practicing one-size-fits-all from the top and think that you
are not reinforcing existing inequalities is just self-delusional. Maybe
ICANN should elect headquarters in Nigeria and do price recovery from there,
that would be more helpful for bridging the digital divide :)

Re. AfriNIC, Maputo meeting: Although I remember interesting discussions
about NRO, I frankly don't remember the details of what was decided or
signed in Maputo.... I just learned then about the work AfriNIC had been
doing (so my newness to that arena at the the time may also explain why we
didn't meet). I found myself there while working with our colleagues at
CIUEM back then (the informatics center at the Eduardo Mondlane University).

Do let us know whenever you think we're missing out on "actual IG processes"
as opposed to the "meta-" ones (in your own words). Personally if I could
contribute something, I'd gladly participate. Keeping in mind that only a
small portion of those involved in broader policy issues are prepared to
engage meaningfully with the nuts and bolts of internet infrastructure. On
that point, your meeting attendance breakdown probably wouldn't have been
the same without processes such as WSIS, IGC, WGIG, IGF... Maybe these
global policy processes have not been only nefarious, after all.

cheers,
mawaki




>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101109/551d816b/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