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

[Naresh Ajwani]

Dear Greg,

".......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...."

Would you please let us know that how this process addresses minority
representation?

U wud appreciate that democracy is not only about majority or so explained
consensus but ensuring the rights of minorities too.

Regards & best wishes

Naresh Ajwani
On 11 Mar 2014 22:10, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan at reedsmith.com> wrote:

>   <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<discuss-bounces at 1net.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *George Sadowsky
> *Sent:* Friday, March 07, 2014 10:37 AM
> *To:* 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)  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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             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."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140312/fa8cb0c2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 45802 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140312/fa8cb0c2/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 30459 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140312/fa8cb0c2/image001-0001.png>