[discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is globalized? (:-)

[Shatan, Gregory S.]

<snip>
And I’m not sure what a Mulstatkeholderist approach can contribute here.  I don’t see that a “consensus” position is either possible nor necessarily desirable—what kind of consensus position could a Google sign on to in the case I’ve just pointed. I for one wouldn’t particularly want the range of options to be considered in the political/policy forum to be subject to a veto by Google as would presumably be required by a MSist approach with consensus outputs. Similarly even entering into the MSist context would to my mind be disempowering in an instance such as this given the depth of resources—human, financial, political/influential which a Google could toss at the issue and which would in an enforced MSist (and regrettably it seems in the broader political contexts as well), be effectively and practically overwhelming.
<snip>

Michael:

Actually, your presumptions are incorrect.  This is not how multistakeholderism and consensus actually works, at least not within the ICANN GNSO.

First, “consensus” in that context (among others) is actually what some others call “rough consensus.”  The GNSO operates under levels of consensus (termed Full Consensus (unanimity), Consensus (some opposition), Strong Support But Significant Opposition, and Divergence (no prevailing view)).  So, there is no such thing as a “veto” by any particular party – if they are in the opposition, they are entitled to submit a Minority View, but they are not entitled to stop a Consensus from being formed.

Second, the primary level on which multistakeholder consensus-building takes place is the “stakeholder representative” level, not the self-interested individual level.  While there can certainly be “self-interest” involved, individuals who look out for the needs of their employer rather than the stakeholders they represent tend to get “disciplined” by the process (by other reps of the same stakeholder group, by the stakeholder group generally, and even by representatives of other stakeholder groups who are protecting the integrity of the process).  Someone who is clearly advancing an entity position tends to get push-back.

Third, the multistakeholder process tends to blunt perceived advantages based on purported “depth of resources.”  When business, IP, ISP, registrar, registry, civil society, ALAC, nonprofit, etc., representatives get on a call or in a room, the process of stating positions, discussion, negotiation and attempts to develop consensus (and/or minority views) is really quite equal – a civil society rep from Morocco has just much of an opportunity to shape the discussion as an ISP rep from Virginia.  Resources (beyond travel budgets) really don’t get you all that much in the MS process.  (They may get you more in working around the MS process, which is an argument to strengthen MSism, not to weaken it.)  Frankly, having been involved in ICANN for a few years, I think that there is little truth to the idea that private sector companies generally throw vast resources at ICANN matters.  Entities for which domain names and the domain name business are central may devote resources to ICANN matters, but for the private sector generally, this area gets little attention and few resources.

Given the above, the multistakeholder approach is actually incredibly empowering.  As  a participant in a number of ICANN working groups, I’ve been incredibly impressed by the work ethic, intelligence, mutual respect, ability to air and influence views and consensus-building energy that is the hallmark of multistakeholderism done well.  The multistakeholder approach, in concert with transparency and accountability, actually acts a “check and balance” system, making it difficult for any one stakeholder group’s positions to dominate, much less the positions of a single stakeholder.  I think it’s the best hope for the voice of disparate groups to influence policy and practice.

I would urge you to familiarize yourself more with multistakeholderism in practice at ICANN (and elsewhere) before you jump to conclusions about its application.

Greg Shatan

From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 5:04 PM
To: 'George Sadowsky'; discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is globalized? (:-)

George,

A problem with this approach to the “social” is that it fails to recognize that many/most/all of the issues which would fall into the “social” layer (and many of those associated with these in other layers as well) are essentially “political” issues i.e. ones where there are significant differences not simply of (technical or other) opinion (or which could be easily resolvable through some sort of consensus building process). Rather they are issues where there is a distinct difference/conflict  of values/norms/interests which ultimately have to do with power and who controls a situation sufficiently to determine how rewards/benefits/outcomes are distributed.

More or less subtle attempts to “depoliticize” these issues is in fact an attempt to divert attention away from the very real clash of interests in these areas. Is my digital identity something that belongs to me along with all of the data that accrues to that identity or is it a “profile” that belongs to Google where they can use that as a basis to slice and dice all the attributable data and then sell it on as a means to manage/manipulate/market me in the digital marketplace? This isn’t a “technical” question (nor a “social” question whatever that could be) rather it is a “political” question which could become the basis for mobilization, political organizing, political contestation (one can presume that Google et al will not want their “ownership” of my digital identity to be transferred back to me) and ultimately clashes of political opinion out of which policy would emerge where the (monopoly) power of the State would of necessity be used to enforce the distribution/redistribution of benefits/determination of relative positions and so on. .

And I’m not sure what a Mulstatkeholderist approach can contribute here.  I don’t see that a “consensus” position is either possible nor necessarily desirable—what kind of consensus position could a Google sign on to in the case I’ve just pointed. I for one wouldn’t particularly want the range of options to be considered in the political/policy forum to be subject to a veto by Google as would presumably be required by a MSist approach with consensus outputs. Similarly even entering into the MSist context would to my mind be disempowering in an instance such as this given the depth of resources—human, financial, political/influential which a Google could toss at the issue and which would in an enforced MSist (and regrettably it seems in the broader political contexts as well), be effectively and practically overwhelming.

Mike

From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org<mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 10:37 AM
To: discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org> List
Subject: [discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is globalized? (:-)

All,

Purpose: What topics in Internet governance should 1net focus upon?

Discussion on this list has focused heavily on the future of IANA, as well as on human rights issues.  Those are certainly appropriate topics for the Brazil meeting, but if 1net is to have a longer life, then there may well be other topics included in Internet governance that do merit attention.

Context

I’d like to talk about this more after introducing a couple of diagrams and some text from a publication forthcoming in I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society   (www.is-journal.org<http://www.is-journal.org>)  It is titled “Internet governance is out Shared Responsibility,” by Vint Cerf, {Patrick Ryan, and Max Senges.  I take the following from a draft version of the paper, subject to final edits.  In my view, it’s an excellent paper and should be read by anyone involved in Internet governance discussions.

Among other things, the authors propose a layering of issues in Internet governance according to their relative position between strictly technical and strictly social.  A number of such models have been proposed.  One proposed earlier on this list by Brian Carpenter, and augmented by a set of his slides, was an extremely good and thorough exposition of this concept.  ISOC has published something similar, using a different approach to displaying the results.

The paper proposes adding a social layer to the normal stack of issues, as in the chart below.  I believe that the specific issues listed are meant to be examples, because they are certainly not exhaustive of the issues at any of the four layers.  Of course, many problems in this space do not live exclusively in just one layer, but ‘bleed’ somewhat into adjacent layers.

            [cid:image001.png at 01CF3D0E.0D4B9F50]

            Illustration 1 - Social Layer Added to the Established Layered Model
                                                 of Internet Governance


The authors state:

"We provide this conceptualization in order to trigger discussion about which institutions and stakeholder groups should legitimately be involved in which Internet policy issues. Put differently, we believe that it will be
beneficial to the operation of the whole online ecosystem if the mandates of institutions are mapped and clarified with regard to their relevance in steering Internet governance practices and policymaking."

"Hence, Illustration 2 shows a schematic example of mapping of institutions with relevant mandates overlaid on the layers of Internet governance.  Here we show the IGF is positioned in the center as it has no decision-making mandate itself but is instead, it is positioned to facilitate and moderate said decision making to take place elsewhere. In Clark’s terminology, at the IGF, we’re separating the “tussles” in a forum where they can be analyzed in workshops and discussion sessions and then brought back to the various other forums for decisions."


[cid:image002.png at 01CF3D0E.0D4B9F50]


This approach to defining shared responsibility for Internet governance is not new.  ICANN has published its view of this, and a extraordinarily good and thorough presentation of analysis of this type has been made by David Souter and is well worth reading.  In the above display, national governments and their various agencies are totally missing, and that seems to be to be a fundamental flaw, but one that can be easily corrected.

The space of Internet governance issues

The 1net discussions until now have focused primarily upon Internet naming and numbering (the logical layer) on the one hand, and human rights issues with respect to the Internet (the social layer).  This perhaps appropriate given the announced focus of the Brazil meeting. However, the Brazil meeting is just one in a number of meetings, and the purple of 1net goes well beyond that meeting.

However, Internet governance is much more than names and addresses.  And in fact, in terms of stability of operations, the current use of names and addresses by Internet users to actually do things using the Internet is working remarkably well.  On the other had, most of the other examples in the first chart above, where the Internet is colliding with existing activities and changing the nature of processes, is not working nearly as well as we would like.  To be sure, the problems are more difficult, and require a different set of actors to solve, but that is no reason for not discussing them.  In fact, there is every reason to address this set of issues in order to start to solve them.

Consider just the content layer for the moment.

Many of the issues in this layer depend locally upon adequate legislation and regulation that depends on a balance between freedom for and restrictions on behavior and actions, both sides of the balance being supported by social goals.  At the international level, cooperation requires a minimum of agreement regarding that balance so that international cooperation among nation governments can take place.  What initiatives might make it possible to achieve both appropriate structures at the national level and coordinated structures at the international level to make this happen.  Do we need an UNCITRAL-type movement to work toward these goals?  Among the issues affected are:

            - Addressing cybercrime activities effectively
            - Understanding and ameliorating the spam situation
            - ISP liability issues for content stored and/or transmitted
            - Consumer protection
            - Electronic document status (contracts, etc.)
            - Regulatory and legislative environment -- effects on Internet access and pricing
            - Competition policy within country and internationally
            - Policy/support for community services
            - Culture with respect to private data of individuals (tracking, advertising, etc.)
            - Intellectual property rights

I suspect that most everyone on this list can expand it with their own issue of importance.

These are areas where intensive national government involvement is absolutely essential.  Where are these issues being discussed in a way that has the possibility of dramatically improving these situations?  Does the 1net list have any claim to, or responsibility for, addressing this area?  It certainly is a part of Internet governance?

Bertrand de la Chapelle has been discussing the international dimension of these issues in his cross-boundary jurisdiction project, and he is raising really important issues and providing insights into the nature of this problem.  However, as much if not more attention needs to be paid to these issues at the national level.  Where are national governments being faced with these issues as a part of their responsibilities.  How can other sectors assist in making this happen?  Which other actors play a part in improving things, and is this happening.  How can 1net comment meaningfully on these issues?

Concluding …

Using the working definition of Internet governance adopted by the WGIG in 2005:

            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.

How might the discussions on 1net be enlarged in a productive manner to address some of the issue areas included in the above definition, other than the ones that have received extensive discussion to date?  Define this as problem no. 2, if you like, but its really a meta-problem.   The real problems are the ones listed above.

George









* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.

* * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.

Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140311/96fb84c5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 30459 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140311/96fb84c5/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 45802 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140311/96fb84c5/image002-0001.png>