[governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening speakers

David Cake dave at difference.com.au
Tue Nov 3 12:19:58 EST 2015 

> On 30 Oct 2015, at 9:46 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday 29 October 2015 07:26 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> Well done, David!
>> And in particular your point that
> 
> Too much here seems to be hanging on one point that I do not understand what is a p2p technical architecture :). Even though I have said that I did know it, and I would expect people to take such a statement at face value.

	I didn’t say you didn’t understand it, I said you confused two different levels of discourse by using technical terms inappropriately.
	I didn’t state at all whether you were doing so due to ignorance of the technical details, or due to lazy rhetoric because making the distinction wouldn’t help your argument. If anyone had asked, I’d have guessed the latter.

> I keep hoping that this Northern project of building the capacity of ignorant people in the South would have some expiry date somewhere, but it does not seem to.

	You can pretend that this is the dynamic at work here, but I don’t think anyone is convinced. There are plenty of folk from ‘the global North’ (as an aside - always an odd descriptor for an Australian, but I accept the terminology is well established despite that) who similarly will unhelpfully conflate technical and political layers for rhetorical purposes (plenty of US and European activists, say, criticising Internet governance fora for not solving mass surveillance, as if ICANN or the IGF could just decree NSA programs out of existence), and plenty of activists in the global South who are excellent at correctly delineating the complex layering of technical and political (and economic, etc) issues we deal with, many of them on these lists (Pranesh’s recent work on analysis of the zero rating issue is a recent example that springs to mind).
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> 	Confusing the technical and economic and institutional architectures
>>> like this is a problem, because it leads to confusing the roles of the bodies that
>>> regulate the various levels.
>> ...is especially important.
> 
> This point is rather more substantial. However, still an allegation of a 'confusion' that I do not have.

	No, I think it is a confusion you are trying to create for rhetorical purposes in that particular message.

> In fact, I myself insist that we do not use technical governance to leverage political solutions, and also, as importantly, if not more, not take simplistic and essentialist technical stances in areas that are essentially political, like the area of centralisation or decentralisation of power and control over the Internet essentially is.

	And in general I’m relatively in favour of decentralisation as well. I still don’t think a p2p system is the same thing as a decentralised system based on a client-server architecture.

> It is rather more frustrating when technical actors, or worse, political actors expediently taking a technical cover, insist on some things being 'technical facts' when the issue is really political.

	And perhaps you are missing the point that it is equally as frustrating when political actors insist on some things being ‘political facts’ when the issue is really technical. No matter how you frame it, P2P vs client-server is a technical distinction not a political one (P2P architectures can have centralised control, client-server architectures can form the basis of decentralised systems).

> In this I agree with the above assertion that we should avoid confusion about the role of bodies that regulate at various levels.

	I’m sure we can at least agree that confusion is not a positive thing, yes.

> There is today too much of 'technical' intrusions in Internet related public policy matters, a lot of which serves to defend and legitimise status quoist political-economic positions and advantages. For instance, I have a long history on this list, as     elsewhere, advocating that we avoid exporting models of governance that may be suitable in the technical space to the political, or Internet related public policy, space.

	As I’m well aware - its mostly on the fraught question of what might replace them on where we part ways.

> ICANN is a great advocate of such an export, the Net Mundial Initiative being expressly that.

	I think you will find that while Fadi Chehade may be ICANNs CEO, he is not ICANN, his personal projects don’t always translate well to the advocated positions of ICANN in general. ICANN as a whole has a very limited connection to NMI, and that connection is likely diminishing.
	Its also worth noting that the NMI is not a governance body - its essentially a funding body, clearing house, etc. I’m sure those directly involved with the NMI could fill in more detail. I’m fairly certain that, despite paranoia, it isn’t really a good example of ‘exporting models of governance that may be suitable in the technical space to the political’, it being neither a political governance nor a good example of a technical model of governance from the technical space.

> Even ISOC recently advocated that Internet related public policy issues be addressed taking lessons from how technical bodies like the IETF work. This, David, I am sure, you would take these as instances of what " leads to confusing the roles of the bodies that regulate the various levels”.

	Sure. But its worth noting that the IETF, ISOC, ICANN, the W3C etc while they may have some things in common, are by no means the same. Many of these discussions will only usefully progress if we drill down beyond the ‘multistakeholder vs multilateral’ etc discussions, and drill down to specifics.

	David

> 
> parminder
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ <http://www.igcaucus.org/>
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t <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/20151104/f7786241/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/20151104/f7786241/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

More information about the Governance mailing list