[governance] Update from today's MAG call

Suresh Ramasubramanian suresh at hserus.net
Sat Aug 3 00:13:59 EDT 2013 

It is a very real issue in technical standards bodies - given that a vendor's proprietary standard that gets adopted into a technical standard can lead to them cornering the market on products using that standard.  

It is an even larger issue in the RIRs and ICANN given the significant policy components and the perception of IP addresses as a critical internet resource, even, by some countries, as a national resource.

Suffice to say that the same threats you describe do exist - and the enforcement mechanism to ward off those threats remains much the same, though it may well vary in degree depending on the nature of the conference.

--srs (iPad)

On 03-Aug-2013, at 9:31, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Whether or not the "allocation of IP addresses and autonomous systems" is a matter of technical policy or a public policy is something worth discussing but my overall point was that if it is of purely "technical policy" interest then different standards/norms would likely need to prevail based on norms within the technical community (I'm not sufficiently familiar with those processes to comment) as compared to public policy processes as per ensuring a segregation as to potentially self-interested parties. (I believe however, that the issue of corporate capture has been of considerable signficance at various times in various standards processes for example.)
>  
> M
>  
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 10:23 AM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; George Sadowsky; parminder; Grace Githaiga
> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call
>  
> Both. Please remember that APNIC as one of the RIRs is responsible for allocation of IP addresses and autonomous systems. 
>  
> IP addresses are one of the critical resources of the internet - and APNIC / the other RIR's  governance processes include policy rather than just technical standards. So they absolutely have to be, and definitely are, open,  transparent and consensus based.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 03-Aug-2013, at 8:36, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes, and I think there is some ambiguity or misattribution when we use the term "policy"…
>  
> I know that in the technical world "policy" refers to things like "engineering standards" http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/estatesprojects/policyandstandards/tps while in the public policy world "policy" refers to things like  "governmental action" of various kinds and at various levels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy
>  
> I would guess that the ISP/APNIC conference(s) you are referring to would be generally using "policy" in the first sense above, while for many (most) the IGF is concerned with the latter… It is probably worthwhile in the context of MSism/the IGF for there to be some broader clarification/definitions around these issues (and I recognize that the disambiguatiion involved might raise significant issues concerning the nature of MSism and the IGF--one's moreover which I think are very much worth clarifying/discussing.)
>  
> M
>  
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 9:12 AM
> To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; George Sadowsky; 'parminder'
> Cc: 'Grace Githaiga'
> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call
>  
> As a counterpoint I have helped run, and so has paul wilson, a networking and operations conference for isps, sponsored mostly by vendors but with strictly enforced content neutrality rules, and in the collocated APNIC conference, consensus based governance and policy making, regardless of the sponsor. 
> 
> --srs (htc one x) 
> 
> 
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
> To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "'George Sadowsky'" <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>, "'parminder'" <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Cc: "'Grace Githaiga'" <ggithaiga at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call
> Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 7:22 AM
> 
> 
> (Sorry, working through my mail front to back.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I agree with this. The issue I think would be the degree to
> which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public
> policy component to it. The more the public policy element (or the
> expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the
> more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into
> the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards
> from the local to the global).
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially
> valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards
> necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial
> (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest
> bidders.
> 
> 
> 
> (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really
> not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this
> discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's.
> Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on
> values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in
> question (in this instance the global Internet governance community).
> Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that
> community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion. These processes of norm
> setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of
> consensus building within the relevant community.)
> 
> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
> Cc: Grace Githaiga
> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call
> 
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> 
> 
> I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions
> regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an
> desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation
> within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings
> presumably feeding into it.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, it would be more appropriate if  representatives of those smaller
> meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the
> other way around.  This should not be a top down operation. 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global
> IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply.  This
> is not true for regional and national IGFs.
> 
> 
> 
> Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or
> non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is
> their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a
> recommendation that should be made at a global level. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote:
> 
> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional
> and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such
> initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". 
> 
> 
> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence?  
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start
> imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about
> getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if
> say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company  decides it will put
> in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted?
> At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate
> stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners.
> Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What
> works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. 
> 
> 
> Grace,
> 
> Happy to clarify. 
> 
> First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be
> made applicable  to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as
> also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others)  agree that it is appropriate and
> necessary to apply to the UN IGF.
> 
> Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate
> money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken
> to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all
> for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving
> speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots,
> special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level
> (policy related) meetings,  logos in and around the spaces where actual
> policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... 
> 
> Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these
> above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that  democratic propriety
> demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or
> regional IGFs? 
> 
> Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you
> are saying here, and you understand my position.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rgds
> 
> GG
> 
>  _____  
> 
> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530
> From: parminder at itforchange.net
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call
> 
> 
> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue
> of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved
> of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and
> for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document
> off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good
> " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food,
> and that has to be at a reasonable price".
> 
> Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and
> national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such
> initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces
> from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and
> national levels as at the global level.
> 
> As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia
> Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund
> raising document as, and I quote
> 
> ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is
> nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement."
> 
> If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the
> MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? 
> 
> I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough
> reason to be concerned about it.  If any clarification in this regard is to
> be forthcoming, I would welcome it.
> 
> There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a
> somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy
> dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in
> governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how
> they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And
> for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being
> slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such
> extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms.
> 
> parminder 
> 
> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an
> observer.)
> 
> Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to 
> 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There
> are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries
> to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that,
> there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which
> for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get
> so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be
> held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is
> willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some
> preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to
> recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week.
> 
> The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have
> already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have
> not booked yet. 
> 
> The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said
> that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be
> commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the
> UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a
> compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside
> the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible
> from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the
> premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable
> price.
> 
> So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting
> commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has
> simply been declared dead.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130803/cddefb55/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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

More information about the Governance mailing list