[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG

[William Drake]

Hi Brian
On Dec 28, 2013, at 8:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29/12/2013 02:26, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi On Dec 28, 2013, at 4:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter
>> <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 27/12/2013 10:37, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>>>> I don't think the use of the word "governance" implies in
>>>> any way that governments will or should be involved.
>>>> This is just a mis-impression.
>>> It isn't implied, but stated as a fact, in the WSIS
>>> definition of 'Internet governance.’
>> 
>> Sorry Brian but not only is this not implied by the
>> definition, the whole point of the definition was to say
>> precisely the opposite.  
> 
> Huh? The words (quoted here recently) were:
> 
> "Internet governance is the development and application by
> Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their
> respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules,
> decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the
> evolution and use of the Internet."
> 
> The very first player mentioned is Government, with capital G.
> How that could be interpreted as its exact opposite defeats me.
> 

In a UN setting, governments are listed first, with a G.  So yes, if one is compelled via negotiations to identify the actors who engage in governance within the terms of its definition (which was about as logically necessary as identifying who engages in breathing, but it was the price we paid), a generalizable definition intended to encompass all cases would have to say anyone can do it, and as Governments are clearly part of anyone, trying to exclude them from a meaningless truism would have been a pointless battle (sorry the TC had no separate UN standing at this point and was viewed as a cross cut of the three recognized SGs).   As I said before here, 

On Dec 17, 2013, at 10:27 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> *WGIG added "by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles” as a sop to certain members (Chatham prevents me from saying who, but you can guess it wasn’t the nongovernmentals who were supposedly relegated to secondary status by the phrase) in order to get their agreement to the rest of the definition.  Since the definition completely decentered the question of “who” governs (recall at the time we were stuck between ICANN fetishism and ITU fetishism, both definitionally nonsense), established that government takes many forms other than formalized governmental agreements, and explicitly covered both the Internet and its use (again, as opposed the instructions SG Utsumi gave us at the first meeting, to concentrate only on names and numbers and who should run them, meaning ITU), the respective roles garbage was an acceptable tactical trade.  While it’s been repeatedly cited and abused in some UN contexts like the WSIS reviews and CSTD, its not like claims of special government privileges and monopolies on policy wouldn’t have been made in its absence.


So further to Avri’s point,

On Dec 28, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> What is missing from the working* definition is any indication of a special sovereignty over the Internet for governments.  They only role they have in governing is as one of the stakeholders in areas in which they may some capabilities and responsibilities.

So they and/or others may be involved in the development and application of blah blah blah with respect to a particular IG issue area. Or they may not. And from a broad def standpoint, there are indeed areas where governments play an important and even leading role, e.g. rules of the road for intellectual property, digital trade and commerce, transborder content questions, some aspects of network security (and the violation thereof) etc.

Finally, the definition is best understood in relation to the legislative history.  “ITU should run the Internet” died as a WSIS theme in the WGIG; ITU was only mentioned once in the WGIG report, in a footnote.  From summer 2005 governments looking for more power turned to proposing the creation of new intergovernmental oversight mechanisms to replace the USG roles and either boss ICANN around or do its job, none of which could have been agreed on a consensus basis.  So here we are a decade later, and the end hasn’t come in part because of the definitional exercise rather than despite it.  Indeed, one could argue that the GAC has had more impact on the underlying resources than the ITU.  If you’re feeling masochistic, feel free to have a look at this for more related blather:

http://www.academia.edu/1902623/Drake_William_J._2005._Conclusion_Why_the_WGIG_Process_Mattered._In_Reforming_Internet_Governance_Perspectives_from_the_UN_Working_Group_on_Internet_Governance_edited_by_William_J._Drake_249-265._New_York_United_Nations_Information_and_Communication_Technologies_Task_Force

Best

Bill