CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

[McTim]

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> McTim,
>
> You keep making this point that all the woes of MSism come from, and only
> from, the ITU/WSIS breed.

I've never made that point.  I HAVE however consistently pointed out
that what goes on in Geneva is "meta-IG" and that BUTOC (Bottom Up,
Transparent, Open, Consensus-based) processes are far superior to
those where governments have a greater role than anyone else.


> First of all, I'd contend that the constituency-based approach at ICANN was
> and still is an instance of MSism.

It's a type of MSism, certainly, but the "representation" and
Stakholder Groupings make it far more like Geneva based processes than
the "MSism that built and developed the Internet for the last 3+
decades" that I referred to earlier.


 Don't take my word for it; as soon as the
> WSIS process made the term 'multistakeholder' fashionable, we've heard it a
> lot reclaimed in ICANN's ranks. So much so that they have now re-devised
> their old constituency groupings into stakeholder groupings. However, as far
> as I know, ICANN only dealt with its direct stakeholders as organization,
> that is, the domain name industry, the technical community (security and
> stability aspects of the net), and the business, particularly via the lenses
> of IPR issues.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of the very early failed attempt at direct voting by end
> users for their reps on the board of directors, but after that it took many
> years for the Noncommercial user constituency to be recognized (only as part
> of the GNSO community) and for ICANN itself to get the ALAC structures
> going. (Please feel free to correct me or complete if I'm missing any major
> aspect of things here; I'm just summarizing on the flight.) At the end of
> the day, constituencies and stakeholders at ICANN have also had to be
> divided into separate groupings with an identity label -- and so it was
> before WSIS started.
>
> Was that then a perfect instance of MSism which ITU-WSIS came to spoil? I
> just once to have this clarified once for all as to what you exactly mean
> everything you point to ITU as having put the worm in the fruit (or whatever
> colloquialism I'm missing to remember correctly here) by delineating
> stakeholder groups as it did during the WSIS process.
>
> Beyond that, I'd also appreciate if you can give references or pointers to
> any clear formulations (e.g, RFC or excerpt of charter, of rules and
> operating procedures of relevant groups, or other informal text that may
> have served for guidance in implementing MSism, etc.) of instances of MSism
> you deem successful or which should be taken as reference (such as any
> version of "MSism that built and developed the Internet for the last 3+
> decades.")

The RFC process itself is a good place to start:

http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_InternetStandardsandtheRequestForCommentRFCProcess.htm

here is another from your region:

http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development

some pretty pictures here;

https://www.apnic.net/policy/policy-environment

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

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