[governance] MIPOC

Anja Kovacs anja at internetdemocracy.in
Thu Nov 7 08:21:25 EST 2013 

Interesting proposal, Wolfgang, and also tying  in to our own proposal to
make the IGF a clearing house. By why not give this new function to the
MAG, rather than setting up a separate body. After all, shouldn't what
MIPOC discusses also feed into the IGF agenda quite substantively then?

Best,
Anja


On 7 November 2013 14:19, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as
> it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public
> policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to
> day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal
> for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain
> where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts.
> As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new
> gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new
> gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day
> operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly
> politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security
> protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there
> is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and
> collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes early
> engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that
> different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities).
>
> For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which
> still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy".
>
> However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house
> which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under
> discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems
> on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder
> Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but
> the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings.
> It does not discuss policy issues.
>
> MIPOC could be composed in a similar way like the WGEC and put on top of
> the IGF (and linked to the MAG). MIPOC could draw conclusions from the IGF
> discussions and clear what the right way would be to deal with issues which
> where raised by IGF plenaries or workshops. MIPOC would not take decisons
> but would recommend how and by whom the issues should be further discussed
> (and decided). MIPOC could send issues to IGOs, INGOs, technical
> organisations or a combination of those organisations (as an implementation
> of EC). Or it could - as IETF is doing - create in a bottom up open and
> transparent process a working group or a multistakeholder task force to
> move towards rough consensus. This has to be done on a case by case basis
> and only where needed, that is where a critical mass of stakeholders have
> identified an issue as a problem which needs a policy.
>
>
> wolfgang
>
>
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake
> Gesendet: Do 07.11.2013 09:13
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran
> Cc: parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; &lt,
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
> tomorrow lunchtime
>
> Hi John,
>
> On Nov 7, 2013, at 5:03 AM, John Curran wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:47 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote:
> >>> Parminder -
> >>>
> >>> For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda?
> >>>
> >> John
> >>
> >> The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote
> >>
> >> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the
> future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their
> roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues
> pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and
> operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy
> issues. "
> >>
> >> This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet
> governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact
> international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of
> the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation
> discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them.
> >
>
> I don't find paragraph 69 easy to read and understand, too many commas.
>  But, I think paragraph 77 of the Tunis Agenda gives direction when it
> says, among other things, the IGF "would have no involvement in day-to-day
> or technical operations of the Internet".  We've had 8 years experience
> with IGF agendas and know what topics fall under its mandate, what is/is
> not day-to-day technical and operational matters.  Clearly the I* etc. are
> not safe from these proposals.
>
> I think we can expect the current responsibilities of the Address
> Supporting Organization (ASO) and Number Resource Organization (NRO), both
> policy coordination/development bodies, would be subsumed by this new
> "institutional solution" (UN body?).  As would the IANA function, global
> address pool, etc.  As would the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation
> (ccNSO), which coordinates global ccTLD policy, etc, etc.  I guess you'd
> still be able to hand out addresses on a day-to-day basis, but the RIRs'
> bottom-up policy development processes used to guide those allocations
> would in future likely be sent down from the new institution.  Probably
> coordination of protocol development would come under the new institution:
> The IETF meeting taking place now in Vancouver would see representatives of
> the institution on stage, etc.
>
> Tunis Agenda suggests WSIS implementation shouldn't involve the creation
> of any new institutions, something that was also made clear soon after
> Tunis in discussions about the organization of the IGF.  I guess that means
> this new "institutional solution" will be part of an existing entity.  It
> will be UN, and in the UN family the ITU would stand out as being the
> competent agency.
>
> And somehow all this must be paid for.  UN is slashing budgets, the ITU
> has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.)
>
> Not good.
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> > Thanks for the reminder.
> >
> > So on the question of terminology -
> >>> Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet
> >>> substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"?
> >>>
> > these are "Internet _public policy_ issues", as opposed to "Internet
> policy development issues"...
> >
> > Are we all using the phrase "Internet public policy" consistently, when
> referring to matters of
> > norms and customs on the Internet?   (e.g.  there are likely aspects of
> globalization of ICANN
> > and IANA which pose Internet public policy issues, and others aspects
> which are operational
> > matters)
> >
> > /John
> >
> > Disclaimers:  My views alone.   No public policy proposed in this email.
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131107/f37d850a/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