[governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance

Sun Dec 1 08:55:52 EST 2013

thanks Suresh, though this does not convince me much.

It reminds me of a great executive at Airbus. He achieved a few things in this European project, such as managing the building of the new assembly facility for the Airbus A380 (a huge and smart plant by the way). Before that he had to restructure the EADS missile branch. It was made of many different parts, each of them assuming they were acting together (do you say multistakeholder here?). Reality was that these different parts were more or less baronies, who would stick to their history, tradition, way of thinking, number of employees... The only way he could make them work together, in an efficient manner was to create a brand new building. Other old buildings could not only fit everyone, but could not either fit new technologies, new management skills... He needed a shock of culture, a transformative plan. That's how he succeeded. Some of the old buildings were later decommissioned, though not all of them. The new building was a great success. It was a transparent building (unusual for missile makers) and it allowed them to link back to civil industry, as the missile business was losing a lot of ground.

What seems to me, is that, even though they are many great minds and a lot of experience and expertise along the IGF path, today that process is almost coming to an end. The fact that the ICANN is more or less doing what it pleases itself in regards of panels, committee, liaisons, participants, means the IGF has no other choice than to think different. Don't you think?

We can wait for Brazil, and see where this is will drive the IGF community with its flaws and virtues. The ICANN train won't wait for the IGF when IGF should be the locomotive.
__________________________

Jean-Christophe Nothias 
Editor in Chief
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
@jc_nothias

Follow us on Twitter and Like us on Facebook 
Follow my Op-Eds at the Huffington Post US

Palais des Nations SP2-53
8-14 avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva, Switzerland

T: +41 22 917 12 97
www.theglobaljournal.com

Le 1 déc. 2013 à 14:32, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :

> It is simply that existing governance structures are multistakeholder. The thrust seems to be to uproot and replace them, and a lot of the voices in favor of that are more influenced by political control than the practical difficulties of replicating everything from scratch while at the same time a pitched battle for control of this new structure continues. 
> 
> --srs (htc one x)
> 
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
> To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net>
> Cc: "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch>, <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance
> Date: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 6:22 PM
> 
>            Suresh,
> 
> I don't know why but, based upon the reading of some of your previous messages, I had the impression you could do that type of answer. Aren't these 12 words a little antagonistic, and with no argument at all?
> 
> Could you elaborate 
> - doubt
> - work far better
> 
> And what's immediately wrong with 
> a trustworthy international
> jurisdiction
> ??
> 
> Thanks
> JC
> 
> 
> Le 1 déc. 2013 à 12:45, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :
> 
> > I doubt it. Following existing processes from inside is going to work far better for you 
> > 
> > --srs (htc one x)
> > 
> > ----- Reply message -----
> > From: "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch>
> > To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> > Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance
> > Date: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 5:12 PM
> > 
> > The approach proposed by Parminder below is reasonable IMO. I
> > particularly like the idea of creating a trustworthy international
> > jurisdiction. In today's highly globalized world, that could turn out to
> > be very valuable also for purposes quite different from Internet
> > governance.
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert 
> > 
> > 
> > Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 06:58 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> > > > Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word.
> > > > Deirdre
> > > 
> > > Deirdre/ All
> > > 
> > > Most things in social and political discourse are complex. However, 
> > > there is always a way to build categories, split issues, and progress
> > > in steps , whereby we can certainly talk meaningfully about them and
> > > make social and political progress... Such a shared intention is
> > > key...
> > > 
> > > I think there are two clear issues about 'internationalisation of
> > > ICANN'
> > > 
> > > 1. Its legal status, and the jurisdiction to which it is subject.
> > > 
> > > 2. The actual role of US-NTIA in authorising every change in the root
> > > file.
> > > 
> > > It seems that other than the US gov itself, everyone agrees that
> > > US-NTIA should be divested of that 'root change authorising'
> > > role..... Then the question comes; (a) should the role then be
> > > exercised directly and finally by ICANN itself, or (b) another body
> > > to undertake this role (and just this role and nothing else) is
> > > needed.
> > > 
> > > A lot of people - including i* group - are of the opinion that (a)
> > > above is the best option. Some others think that every significant
> > > decision pertaining to a crucial global infrastructure should be
> > > subject to a second opinion or confirmation, as a normal prudence, by
> > > a body different from the executive authority (ICANN Board). One way
> > > would be to have some kind of international oversight board (not
> > > necessarily inter-gov) undertaking the same role as undertaken by
> > > US-NTIA today. Another way is to allow ICANN to make root changes but
> > > all such decisions are post facto reviewed and confirmed by such an
> > > international oversight board. ( Whether with a pre facto or post
> > > facto role, such an oversight board will exercise its role within
> > > clearly set our parameters and rules.) A third way is to only have an
> > > appellate board which reviews root change decisions only if an appeal
> > > is made to it through a due process.
> > > 
> > > Therefore, on point 2 above, we can easily agree to ask US-NTIA to
> > > shed its oversight role. What should further be done can be discussed
> > > along the above three lines (others may add more options if any)
> > > 
> > > Point 1 above is more contentious. Although, in principles, it is
> > > easy to assert that a global resource cannot be subject to the
> > > jurisdiction of one country and that it should be subject to
> > > international jurisdiction. The issue then is; how to form such an
> > > international jurisdiction.
> > > 
> > > Here too, it is easy for us as a civil society group to assert the 
> > > principle - yes, it is untenable that ICANN continues to be subject
> > > to US law and jurisdiction. ICANN needs to be made subject to
> > > international law and jurisdiction. Lets do first agree on this
> > > principle. If we do, we can then take up the subsequent discussion of
> > > how to establish an appropriate jurisdiction and legal framework for
> > > ICANN. I am sure we can close onto a few clear options, if not agree
> > > on one.
> > > 
> > > A structured discussion on the above lines will help identify areas
> > > we all agree on, explore the possibility of convergences on those we
> > > do not, and in the latter case, at least come out with a clear set of 
> > > alternatives.
> > > 
> > > parminder
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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/20131201/5562e739/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Global_logo-175x50px.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14790 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131201/5562e739/attachment.jpg>
-------------- 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