[governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges
Sonigitu Ekpe
soekpe at gmail.com
Sat Nov 23 21:46:46 EST 2013
++++ to JFC notes.
Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA
"Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively."
+234 8027510179
On Nov 23, 2013 6:16 PM, "JFC Morfin" <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> *At 20:47 22/11/2013, Marilia Maciel wrote:*
> As far as I could notice in my first ICANN meeting, there is still no
> clear understanding that ICANN serves the public good. This line is
> becoming more prominent in speeches, but the assimilation and the
> interpretation of what this "public responsibility" entails varies a lot
> across the organization. I can't remember hearing words like "development"
> and "human rights". Competition seems to be used in place of development,
> as if one thing would necessarily entail the other. And competition should
> be achieved by market forces, not through policy (ex: making the
> application for new gTLDs less expensive for developing country applicants
> was not approved some time ago).
>
>
> Maria,
>
> Your feeling is correct. The reason why we have so many disputes over
> competition vs. development vs. neutrality vs. human rights vs. etc. vs.
> etc. is simple enough to understand. It is historic.
>
> From experience and research we call it "the BUG": it is the mental,
> political, technical, etc. “*B*an of every *U*se that reaches a *G*lobal
> scale”, because it cannot be further controlled.
>
> Please understand that the people who have initially designed, used, and
> managed the internet never intended to build a network for the world. They
> were US academics and engineers who enlarged themselves further on to
> business users with progressively no external financing. They applied Louis
> Pouzin's "catenet" concept introduced by Vint Cerf as the interneting of
> their systems using Vint's and Bob Kahn's TCP/IP: the network of networks.
>
> They connected to the international public network in 1984 with one
> objective: keep budget control. This was Jon Postel’s job, the "Internet
> Tsar": to finance, not otherwise voluntarily assumed, common functions
> quickly enough through domain names. ICANN was created by Jon Postel and it
> has continued to his job: auto-financing the IANA. Vint Cerf's ISOC has the
> burden of financing and supporting (relieving Bob Kahn) the IETF, etc.
>
> Technically, the task was practical end to end data transportation and
> running code, not the constraints established by Governments in order
> (through the ISO technology) to respect the (technically costly,
> constraining, uncontrollable) general values that you miss. This was
> technically quicker, "dirtier", cheaper, and unsecure (hence acceptable to
> most). In the deregulation and pre-WTO Kennedy round context it was backed
> by political and military US consensus. Once the then prevailing
> every-use-oriented non-controllable technology (Tymnet) acquired and
> stopped by a member of the US industrial establishment (McDD), the
> competition resolved to US computers+Internet and non-US OSI switchers.
> Industry bucks won over the Public good. Gone are the people’s networks of
> the network of networks project: the robust BUG prevailed.
>
> Today, the whole thing is confronted with reality. Those who pay (Gov,
> professional use, CS) want neutral, secure, versatile, efficient,
> resilient, innovative, fair, sustainable, etc. and most of all foreseeable
> (the investments are heavy and unclear, e.g. IPv6) quality. The I*
> establishment *does not know* how to do it.
>
> This is why we should thank those who (ISOC), for several years, have
> gathered its leaders for them to think together. They achieved at least
> three major things:
>
> (1) to spell out their motivations [this is RFC 6852]. One may disagree
> with it, but it is clear and workable, except on one point that I object
> to: it has to be made reliable.
> (2) the publicly united Montevideo statement that discloses (with Lynn's
> letter to the AC) their MS common and open (1NET) approach to answer this
> objection by MSism.
> (3) that the US, being attacked by Brazil, have accepted to openly
> discuss the matter with everyone (including the Telcos) and ease the
> climate after the WCIT.
>
> This DOES NOT address your objections. This does not address mine either,
> about the architectonic flaws of their position.
>
> HOWEVER, this is a clear position. It does permit us to discuss and build
> with them in very practical technical, political, and economic terms.
>
> Now, if we want to be productive, all of us have to get real. Getting real
> means, among other things,
>
> · for us to accept the particular role of the US in the world
> economy and peace, the contribution and demands of each civilization, the
> common need to re-understand sovereignty and citizenship, the duties of
> every Government, the business reality, the difference between a 1 and a 10
> billion people+N-billion bots society, the impact of the so-called
> "singularity", etc. and most of all that communications are not host to
> host, but among persons.
>
> · For the US, multilateral institutions and Governments, it is also
> to evaluate the pros and cons of globalism vs. glocalism (to respect
> localism – down to the people – within a global context).
>
> · For all, it means to understand what “wholization” is, i.e. the
> synergy of organizing the whole thing together, and how to use/redistribute
> the resulting bonus.
>
> The target is to address the BUG, i.e. to replace a unicity of control by
> a diversified unity, what is *not* balkanization but rather burgeoning,
> in freeing innovation in the use field along universal human digital rights
> (i.e. the specific embodiment of HRs in the digital context).
>
> I just want to add that having seen the spring of the BUG, I feel that it
> only results from a generational culture of the network use management
> (what one also call governance or intergovernance): correcting it could not
> call for the change of a single bit of code (the technology is robust). It
> “only” demands a brainware evolution and reshaping some structures.
> Whatever the hows: we have engaged it.
>
> Let’s not dispute. Let’s cooperate.
>
> jfc
>
> I don't think that arguments such as "the responsibility to support the
> weakest link" would mean much in a high policy dialogue inside ICANN. On
> the best case, my feeling is that it would translate into support for the
> attendance of some constituency members or more fellowships. It does not
> mean, however, that we should demonize the space or stay away from it. It
> was created with this DNA for historical and political reasons. It is up to
> people who believe that the idea of the "public good" and "development" and
> "rights" should be reinforced to be there and shape it. The much necessary
> internationalization would not translate into significant changes on the
> operational level, unless these different views are strengthened from
> within.
>
> Marília
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:03 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> wrote: Hi Michael On Nov 21, 2013, at 4:02 PM, michael gurstein <
> gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the endorsement Bill, but you left out what I consider to be
> a crucial element which is that that support should not be done simply by
> attempting to incorporate/co-opt civil society within ICANN (as seems to be
> the current direction) but rather to provide a means for the independent
> support of an independent, broadly based and inclusive Civil Society—not an
> easy task to accomplish but not I think, impossible.
>
> I have no idea on what basis you are characterizing “the current
> direction” in that manner. What conversations with whom have you had that
> gives you this special insight about “co-optation” being underway? All I
> have heard, which was responsive to your prior comment so I replied, is
> that ICANN recognizes that CS needs to be fully included in the effort.
>
> A useful example with some (but not total) relevance is the support
> that OSI provided for CSISAC at the OECD, which among other things,
>
> So you’re talking about money? I’ve not heard discussions of money, just
> of ensuring the platform is open to all in terms of participation and
> inputs.
>
> allowed for the hiring of a (part-time) CS coordinator and some
> (limited) funds for selected/expert CS participation in various OECD
> substantive activities/events. BTW one of the reasons that this worked to
> the degree that it did was that the funding went (indirectly) to CSISAC and
> the co-ordinator reported to the Steering Committee rather than for
> example, the funding being given to one or another of the organizational
> members of CSISAC who then had the responsibility for (opportunity to) pick
> and choose re: how the funds were spent (which inevitably leads to
> suspicion and bad feeling). Of course, the OECD is quite a different
> space from the IG one but various groupings within CS including notably a
> lot of the current parties in the IG CS space have managed to cooperate and
> accomplish quite a great deal as a result, in large part, of the (quite
> modest) financial support provided by OSI.
>
> Yes, it’s a different space. But at this point we’re still talking about
> much more basic things, like what the framework for participation in
> planning arrangements will be, how people will provide inputs, etc. The
> Brazilians will have more to say after their meeting Monday. Best, Bill
>
> M, From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch<william.drake at uzh.ch>]
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:38 AM To: Governance; michael
> gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: [governance]
> Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance
> challenges On Nov 21, 2013, at 2:27 AM, michael gurstein <
> gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Many are uneasy with this but if ICANN wishes to occupy that role (and
> given their privileged financial position as gatekeeper/rent extractor they
> are in a position to present themselves for this) then they have an
> interest in/responsibility for supporting the weakest link in that
> multi-stakeholder Internet ecology i.e. Civil Society. I can endorse
> the second lat of the sentence, and we have communicated this to Fadi and
> senior staff in some detail. They say they get it. Bill ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Marília Maciel
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131124/e0270a5a/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