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

[Naresh Ajwani]

Thanks Greg for the elaborative response. Frankly, it has raised yet more
queries, may be because of my firm belief in all inclusiveness and no
spiritless processes.

"..... In  a sense, the best protection for a potential "minority view" is
not to end up as a minority view, but rather to end up influencing the
consensus so that it resembles that view to the extent possible, with the
result that the consensus is thus acceptable to the group holding what
might otherwise have been a minority view....."

To the best of my experience, especially  in case of sensitive issues, such
spirit is lacking. Be that as it may, you would appreciate that  even in
your explained ideal environment, the processes are at the most blending
minorty views but not protecting them and that itself, in my view  is
against multistakeholderism.  It is a known fact that every stakeholder
isn't entitled to same equity and justifiably because internet commenced
from one corner of the world.

"....... This is not to dismiss the issue of underrepresentation in ICANN
or any other entity, or to be blind to the idea that underrepresented
groups may have viewpoints that are underrepresented or not represented at
all (even as "minority views")......."

Your comments have further strengthened my concern over lack of all
inclusiveness and despite its acceptance for long, there is no outreach
program to expand the existing stakeholders group. It also raises a
question on the existing stakeholders who, now advocating  msism vs
multilateralism,  seemed to be not bothered at the right time or till the
global pressure has been built to this extent.

In brief, for any global institutionalization,  all multi issues-language
to culture, shud be given their due position and, if in minority, a
protection on their concerns as their right.

Regards & best wishes

Naresh Ajwani
On 12 Mar 2014 12:00, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan at reedsmith.com> wrote:
>
> Naresh:
>
>
>
> Here are my thoughts on and understanding of the process.
>
>
>
> I think the "protection" of first resort for any viewpoint is the
consensus process itself.  In a GNSO Working Group (WG), the process of
exploration, deliberation, persuasion and negotiation is fairly deliberate
and painstaking.  The consensus that emerges from the process is often not
the position that any group or groups held coming into the WG, but rather a
synthesis of views as a result of the process.  The ideal consensus result
is full consensus, and most if not all parties in the consensus process
need to move off their initial positions to build consensus (full or
rough).  All the parties in the WG participate in defining the consensus,
whether they end up signing on to it or not.  So the goal of any group is
to move the consensus toward one's own position, while (ideally) moving
one's own position toward the emerging consensus.  In  a sense, the best
protection for a potential "minority view" is not to end up as a minority
view, but rather to end up influencing the consensus so that it resembles
that view to the extent possible, with the result that the consensus is
thus acceptable to the group holding what might otherwise have been a
minority view.
>
>
>
> if after the consensus process, a Consensus forms but there are still
parties that disagree with the Consensus, they are entitled to submit a
Minority View, which becomes part of the Preliminary Report of the Working
Group (WG), which is put out for public comment.  Public comments would
typically be submitted by stakeholders in the Minority View position and
 those who agree with the Minority View (as well as comments from many
other viewpoints).  The WG will review  and consider the comments, which
may cause the WG to consider revising the consensus if the comments contain
new facts or persuasive argument.  The WG then produces a final report
which is again put up for public comment.  The comments are again reviewed
and changes may be made at this point as well.  The final report is then
submitted by the Working Group to the GNSO Council, which reviews the final
report (including the minority view(s)) in considering the recommendations
made by the WG.  The minority views might persuade the Council to reject or
modify a recommendation.  The recommendations approved by the GNSO Council
are passed on to the ICANN Board, which will adopt the recommendations as
policy unless voted down by a supermajority vote.
>
>
>
> At this point, I don't think it is an issue of "ensuring the rights of
minorities."  The group holding the minority view may not be a "minority"
in a sense of the word other than that they supported the losing
arguments.  Any group can hold a "minority view."  For any given
recommendation, the minority view might be held by the business community,
IP interests, civil society, registrars or registries (or there may be no
minority view at all).  If a group's view is not adopted by the larger
group as a policy recommendation after everything above, that's basically
the end of the story in terms of policy development (though as noted above,
the view of the larger group will likely have changed due to that party's
participation in the process).  The next "protection" will be participating
in implementation oversight to ensure that implementation does not depart
from policy (at least not in a way that Is detrimental to that group's
interests).
>
>
>
> As far as the question of "minority representation" goes, I am not
entirely clear what you are referencing.  At the beginning of the process
there are no minorities, in the sense of those holding views different from
the majority - simply because no majority has really formed yet.  In a
sense, every stakeholder group is a minority of one.  Certainly, there may
be groups that are closer to each other in viewpoint, but they may or may
not form any kind of majority.
>
>
>
> If what you are referring to are "minorities" in a geographic, national,
cultural or ethnic sense, that's a whole different set of questions and
answers, that really has little to do with the issue of holding (or
potentially holding a "minority view" in the consensus process.  This is
not to dismiss the issue of underrepresentation in ICANN or any other
entity, or to be blind to the idea that underrepresented groups may have
viewpoints that are underrepresented or not represented at all (even as
"minority views").  Those are real issues - just not the same issue as how
a party in a consensus process can make sure that the result of that
process resembles their view as closely as possible.  It's also worth
noting that similar views may be held by groups or individuals with widely
varied geographic, national, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, whether or
not some might be considered "minorities" in some sense of the word and
others not.  Indeed, one of the valuable results of the consensus process
is to discuss and commingle viewpoints among disparate actors and to arrive
at a greater understanding or ideally a common viewpoint at the end of the
process.
>
>
>
> Greg Shatan
>
>
>
> From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:ajwaninaresh at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 9:57 PM
> To: Shatan, Gregory S.
> Cc: George Sadowsky; michael gurstein; discuss at 1net.org
>
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is
globalized? (:-)
>
>
>
> 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] 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/20140313/0b318dd4/attachment-0001.html>