[governance] Yet another new -strategy - thread title: It may be broke - politically - but how to fix it, technopolitically? ; )

[Lee W McKnight]

Hi,

First, my condolences to Norbert for his new headache; my congrats to Imran for being spared (at least this year); and also congrats to Sala for us all now having someone else to complain about daring to attempt to - coordinate - this list.  ; )

Second, excerpting from John Curran, re:

"...an existing functional system which has enabled the growth and success of the Internet to date, and an absence of any alternative described in sufficient detail to be demonstrably superior."

Now my comments:

I don't think there's many on the list who would disagree that the - global politics - of Internet governance remain broken/unstable. This was exemplified most recently by WCIT, even as the Internet as a functional system we may all agree, remains very cool. And useful/essential to global and national economies and societies.

Unsurprisingly, given the high stakes involved in changing the plumbing or core infrastructure of the world economy, the barrier to implementing thought experiments in real world policy processes, remains high. And yes of course that (cyber-)infrastructure is not equally or equitably distributed, we may also all agree.

Still with me so far, whether a running dog capitalist or - whatever? : )

As one who tried without luck over the past year to move the thread to discuss approaches which could lead to a possible consensus on a new approach toward technical/institutional changes in Internet governance, post WCIT; that remains the ~5 billion people + XXX billion devices question for 2013 and beyond.

(Meaning, how to govern/manage for the rest of the world and all our devices and resources not already on the Internet.)

One track of discussion quickly gets into technical/political nitty-gritty for example of the root, and alternatives whether competing or cooperating, as Avri, Louis, Suresh, David and Karl etc have been discussing.

Good luck with that.

Another, which I am yet again advocating as perhaps a new year's resolution for - most - all of us in IGC to explore, takes a different track.

That is, we - assume - the Internet as it exists today. With its legacy protocols, systems, and processes, and duly note much of that leads back not just to the US government, but specifically originated out of DARPA contracts and contractors. (Except cough cough, for the world wide web which is the level most businesses and people interact with the net day to day, which of course is a European invention, tossed to MIT to manage/evolve with global big biz support by CERN back in the day.) Anyway, enough history, that's the old news and not the point today.

Instead, I am suggesting IGC should focus for 2013 on - what if any new institutions, processes, and/or principles are needed for a future Internet, to benefit global civil society.  (I don't claim novelty, am just advocating a strategic focus for IGC in 2013-201x)

If that leads back to changes in existing institutions and processes, great.

However,my editorial comment is that the debacle in Dubai highlights that new Internet operational responsibilities for UN agencies as part of that mix aren't likely to gain sufficient support to fly, this decade I submit.  More editorial comments below.

On the other hand, 'enhanced cooperation' via

1) a UNDESA committee is in nascent/not yet adequate stages (inadequate = the embarrassing mess of 2012), but is happening;

2) while WSIS processes unfold as well.   Not too many loud voices raised against those discussions.

2)a Meaning, we can observe global discussions on internet governance ongoing this year in and around ITU WTPF which managed in 2012 to paint a big target on their back, essentially rendering them - speechless/actionless in 2013 I suggest. Since any move to assert authority will just turn them into a bigger target for eg both Google and Anonymous, a mean feat);
2)b to be very specific, I suggest taking WTPF too seriously is a distraction for IGC since nothing much can come of it, due to the errors of 2012.

3) UNESCO on other hand is so far under the public radar because without pretense to get their hands close to core Internet functions, they may possibly make positive contributions.

Which would IGC prefer most to strengthen, or assist? Or are all efforts of equal value? Or equally absent of merit?

or,

4) Should the richer elephant in the room, ICANN, thanks to those new gTLD fees, be recognized as the de facto if not de jure center of all action, and the UN agencies left principally to their own devices by IGC?  IGC assisting ICANN in thinking through how to -further globalize - itself, can be done from the inside; and the outside.

Or do they all have their 'respective role' to play and the IGC should prepare to comment/coordinate with them all more or less equally?

Or, 5) do we/cs need to instead start picking more on WIPO to lighten up on copyright over-enforcement treaties which cascade into national law, in honor of Aron Swartz?

How about 6) WTO which is really the writer of the global rules of all business/government trade in services games?

Most cs players have not attempted to engage equally in all of these, if only for lack of resources.

Perhaps Bertrand, Parminder and others can share some opinions on these jurisdictional/strategy questions for global civil society?

Since I suggest otherwise if we don't have much of a strategy, we can't help grow the Internet governance forest, for all of the trees and distractions all around us.

My 5 cents for the New Year.

Lee



________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of John Curran [jcurran at istaff.org]
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 1:44 PM
To: Riaz K Tayob
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Bloomberg - The Overzealous Prosecution of Aaron Swartz

On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:59 AM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is the interpretation we make (and we are entitled to make it) when for instance:
>
> 1. Some argue for ICANN etc to be regulated by US laws (state or otherwise) - and that this is sufficient.
>
> 2. Others argue that legitimacy of the current structure of governance is not an issue, and that work ought rather to be done within the system. And that it is a none issue.

Alas, my comment on your mention of "US Exceptionalism" was simply to note
that I do not consider it inevitable that the situation (in particular, with respect to
overzealous prosecution nor the specific laws used against Aaron) will improve
simply because of discussion and some presumed inherently superior nature of
the US structures in these areas...   This doesn't mean that it won't get better,
but simply that there is no automatic reason to presume that it will simply due
to discussion in the wonderful U.S. of A.  (note - I do believe it will result in
improvements to to the specific provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act, but that's because of the acts of specific folks like Rep. Zoe Lofgren and
should not otherwise be considered inevitable)

Similarly, I do not consider that structures used for governance of critical Internet
resources (e.g. name and number identifiers) to be inherently superior simply due
to the particular circumstances of origin.  In fact, I completely discount the origin
and simply consider the structures on their demonstrated merits and weaknesses
(i.e. good ideas are good ideas regardless of origin)  The bias towards the status
quo is not a ringing endorsement of the existing structures, nor a heartfelt belief
that the structures must be superior because of US origin and exceptionlism,
but simply reflect the reality that there is an existing functional system which
has enabled the growth and success of the Internet to date, and an absence
of any alternative described in sufficient detail to be demonstrably superior.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimers:  My views alone.  Supporting or contrary viewpoints are welcomed
from all individuals regardless of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation
or disability and will be considered on their merits to the best of my ability.



____________________________________________________________
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/20130121/9587f58f/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