[discuss] Problem definition 1, version 5

Thu Jan 23 15:04:46 UTC 2014

-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] 

>I think I agree that the solutions will distribute themselves into the three 
>classes that you define below, and perhaps even more.  

I'd be interested in your elaboration of other options. One thing I want to avoid is promulgation of a faux 'middle ground' that purports to show us how we can avoid making hard choices. Those kinds of options tend to work verbally but not in reality. An example would be the concept of 'enhanced cooperation' in the Tunis Agenda. It was a verbal solution, but proved not to be a real one.

>I'd prefer to start discussion of the solutions in more detail rather 
>than start with what seems a bit too top-down a classification approach.  
>I fear the devil really is in the details here.

Of course you are right there. But we also need to bite the bullet in some respects. If one is opting for a truly multilateral approach, it is unlikely that the details of the proposal is going to convince diehard supporters of a nonstate-based multistakeholder approach that it will be a good thing. Likewise, if someone wants to retain U.S. unilateral authority over the IANA contract, they should make that clear at the outset; perhaps the details will mollify people opposed to that approach, perhaps not - but details should not be allowed to camouflage the basic political structure being proposed. 

>You might want to flesh out some scenarios within the three classes 
>below and propose them a possible approaches for evaluation against 
>the criteria.  Perhaps that's too simple an approach.

Not too simple at all. Possibly too complex. I am preparing a paper, but my proposed solutions will cluster around the third category. 