[governance] To Start to Answer Avri's Question: The Technical Community as "Steward" of the Internet

[michael gurstein]

I must say that I'm disappointed, not with not being selected for the
Working Group, that's the way those things go, but rather at the way in
which the discussion went, or rather didn't go.

I'm disappointed at the simple lack of courtesy on the part of the
representative of the T/A group in not acknowledging and apologizing for the
incorrect personal attack that was made on me in the course of the
discussion.

But mostly I'm disappointed in the lack of any clear articulation of
precisely what the "Technical Community" sees as their role and values in
relation to "Enhanced Cooperation" or in other terms the institutional
architecture for the "governance" of the Internet.

Since they (or at least their self-selected spokespersons on this list) seem
unable or unwilling to go beyond a pingpong lack of diplomacy perhaps I
could suggest that the role of the larger "Technical Community" is in fact,
a necessary and very significant one which I personally would support as a
necessary contribution to any discussion of Enhanced Cooperation--that is
they are the "stewards" of the effective functioning and future deployment
of the Internet in support of the myriad functions and services now being
built on that platform. 

I personally recognize the need for such "stewards"--every one of the
functions that I have undertaken on the Internet have had at some point and
to a greater or lesser extent, to rely on the skill and experience of such
stewards to ensure that I was able to do on the Internet what I wanted to
do.... And I'm quite sure that we have all had the exact same experience.

And similarly I have on occasion been warned off from doing things that I
wanted to do because it wasn't in the longer term technical interests of the
overall mission that I was attempting to pursue.

But there is the "rub"... So long as it was clear that the ultimate arbiter
in any decision concerning technical areas, as for other areas, was the
longer term organizational/social "mission" then things were fine, but
if/when there was a dispute between let's say technical efficiency or
technical elegance and getting down and dirty and accomplishing the mission
that we had agreed was the central focus of our activities then the
technical stewards needed to give way and conform to the overall
organizational/social mission that we were pursuing.

What I was hoping to hear from the "technical community" acting as
"stewards" of the overall technical integrity of the Internet was some
statement concerning the overall mission for the Internet that they saw as
being what provided the direction for their technical stewardship.  

Simply arguing for technical efficiency or effectiveness as a goal is
clearly insufficient in such a significant area of public impact as the
Internet.  Nor, dare I say, is it sufficient to simply say the mission will
arise out of the interplay of "competitive" commercial (or multistakeholder
or other) forces given the clear historical and resource imbalances that the
various parties are bringing to those interactions. 

What I would have expected/hoped to hear, and this would have provided a
very interesting and useful basis for the discussion that Avri is asking
for, is that the Technical Community are acting in their technical capacity
as "stewards" of the Internet in support of the global public good i.e. an
Internet that serves the interests of us all, the Internet that we want to
build for ourselves and our children.

That would and hopefully still can provide the basis for a very useful
discussion/process where we as a community and including many many others
can work together to attempt to define and detail what we mean by the global
public good in this sphere as we have in other areas, and how that
definition and detailing of the global public good/the Internet for us all
can best be realized both at the level of the technical platform as well as
in the range of activities and services that are being built on top of this
platform.

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 10:58 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group
on Enhanced Cooperation

hi,

I am confused.  What windy rat hole have we gotten ourselves stuck in?  And
while comparative subsidiarity is interesting, I do not see the positive
result all of this will have.

As for the CSTD WG EC itself, as one of those who was honored with the
choice, what is it this group thinks is important?  I would really like to
hear what it is this group thinks needs to be done?

avri

PS: And if that topic isn't appealing, how about:  what do people think
about the 200+ ideas for workshops submitted to the IGF?  What should the
MAG do next?  I am sure that those we have put forward for the MAG and the
MAG-to-be, would be interested in our views.





-------------- 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