[governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

[David Cake]

On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a large extent rushing things largely due to circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance). 
> 
> It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was WCIT in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so much rejection was really not that bad. Now we are told we have to get all scared again and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the actual Internet governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt the ITU.

	Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of nations like South Korea) who had become more inclined to multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the additional impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The Montevideo statement and outreach to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong feeling among the I* that the current political climate is worse than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say whether their impressions are correct, but it does seem likely that they would strongly reject the line of argument you are putting here. 
	I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in the IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for renegotiation, I would have thought. And good.


> And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is nothing close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is happening?

	Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders than I do, so if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT, I have no reason to doubt him either. 

> More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own?

	We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it as becoming urgent they started the process themselves. 


>  
> This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or misrepresenting its processes. 
> 
> 
> I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and a determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I just don't think we need to be driven by fear. 

	Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but I'll cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you specifically, as of course you do have strong understanding of ICANNs processes, though you do still seem to see this through a somewhat ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what the Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central role might have more to do with Fadi personally choosing to push the process along. 
	
	Regards

		David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131026/fb8b3de7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131026/fb8b3de7/attachment.sig>
-------------- 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