[discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is globalized? (:-)
JFC Morfin
jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Mar 13 17:52:33 UTC 2014
On 09:13 13/03/2014, Naresh Ajwani said:
>"1. let's take an example from a developing country. How would an
>ISP - let's imagine, Sify, in India - get to influence IP address
>numbering and domain name policy? In APNIC, the NRO, and ICANN, the
>company did mighty well. There was a Naresh Ajwani in the NRO and in
>APNIC, a President of the company on the ICANN Board. Pretty mighty
>outreach and it was early times....."
>
>While I am sure that your intent is not to intimidate me :-), as
>certainly there would be life on 1net after these deliberations...
>:-), I would be more glad if you could let me know which outreach
>program brought Naresh Ajwani in the NRO. I also clarify that the
>referred to so called developing country has over 950 million
>telephone subscribers, majority with internet enablement, and sooner
>or later, would represent over 30% of total internet population of
>the world :-). In my opinion, this is doing mighty well.
Naresh,
I would be interested in knowing what India's centricity is (what is
the percentage of end to end calls that pass through India) and its evolution.
Perhaps you could also quote the IAB RFC 1958 that begins by
describing the architectural principles of the internet with the
principle of constant change. "The principle of constant change is
perhaps the only principle of the Internet that should survive
indefinitely". The problem that we are currently experiencing is that
this principle is curbed by the "status quo" strategy and we have to
find a peaceful compromise in order to avoid a most common SOC
(self-organized criticality) situation. Our preoccupation is,
therefore, to find a SOCCS (self-organized criticality control
scheme) that can help us to limit the SOC impact.
The situation originates in the currently imposed regional dominant
vision
(<http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/20360/is-there-a-more-generic-word-for-us-centrism>http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/20360/is-there-a-more-generic-word-for-us-centrism)
that should be replaced by an "MS" vision that some see as
multilateral and/or global and/or grassroots and/or economic with
different visions of democracy, polycracy, emergence, etc. which to
be a technically *multitudinal* context (i.e. the multitudes of
states, corporations, people, interest, relations, implications,
social responsibility, wealth or poverty, localizations, etc. i.e.
removing all the societal, political, technical, etc. categorizations
of people, capacities. Where everyone and everything is on an equal
footing, so it may be weighted for what it is worth in that MS, i.e.
multitudinal criticality).
There are three general approaches that are commonly considered when
having to deal with a SOC situation in a complex environment. (To
obtain a short introduction in better English than mine, you can read
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality_control>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality_control.
They quote English texts in publications. My own considerations are
based on the study of complexity, agorics (complex logic), equivalent
mutually inspired French strategic doctrines, and consequences of the
French constitutional laws and citizen's duties related to
precaution. Just to quote areas directly pertinent to what we discuss.
1. Counter-war:
to prevent a foreseen war from occurring through preemptive
actions. This is what I successfully did at the IETF in the case of
langtags and IDNs.
2. To try to modify the agoric entanglement of the context.
This is what Milton Muller tries to achieve in modifying the IG
matrix. This is a cute idea, but it presupposes that the SOC has
already occurred in a benign, but sufficiently constraining, form.
This SOC would probably be, in his hypothesis, limited to Snowdenia
followed by Sao Paulo. My reading is that Snowdenia belongs to the
third type of SOCCS. What is necessary for Milton's DNSA version is a
USG internet (and, therefore, general) collapse. I doubt it will
happen any time soon. The point is, therefore, to adapt the
proposition in order to remove this prerequisite. This is something
we have proposed to the multitude through the HomeRoot experimentation.
3. To introduce an inflexion,
i.e. a small element that is going to redirect the
auto-catalytic process away from the predictable issue. Wikipedia
says: the modification of the deposition process of the self-organized system.
3.1. Introduced by the USG, or some clever agency plan, or by pure
chance, Snowdenia provided a first inflexion. It made it clear to
politicians that the technical status quo was more dangerous than
innovation. This has freed the internet architecture from the risks
that - due to the status quo regional culture - crime would be the
first to use innovation, which would be fought against with laws, and
they in turn would hit innovation (e.g. P2P).
3.2. This has helped on the prevention side (cf. "Cyber Commands
budget nearly doubles under the fiscal 2014 spending bill. Funding
jumped from $212 million in fiscal 2013 to $447 million, according to
defense officials." or
<http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20140122/ACQ/301220012/5-key-facts-about-DoD-budget>http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20140122/ACQ/301220012/5-key-facts-about-DoD-budget)
3.3. This has also helped on the resolution side (from a US-centric
cyberworld to a cyber universe obeying the cosmological principle),
i.e. everyone, every entity, corporation, nation, global organization
having their VGN. Obviously the radical monopoly holders and sponsors
oppose the VGN concept because they clearly perceive it as a
distributed Multitude Stakeholderism taking apart the graduated
organizational, multilateral, apparatchickal, economic,
egotist, decentralized, and US coordinated Multi Stakeholderism that
the /1NET list is supposed to host and globally disseminate through
Sao Paulo. IMHO this is an US strategic mistake due to a split
between US TNCs and USG/US people interests.
Instead of defending an obsoleting context of TNC dominance, US
people/business/public interest should organize themselves in order
to become leading competitors of the new order. This may take time
(moreover, if the internet former dominants are unable to become its
finalization leaders being bogged down in the status quo):
necessarily, VGNs are the final networking paradigm, since this is
the way the Internet is internally designed. And the multitude of the
users need it.
>"2. more than a middle path what we are seeing is a combination of
>all paths that prove productive while compatible with most
>principle-based frameworks. The sum - not the substraction that is
>implied in getting to the middle - is more powerful and provides for
>another important principle that has made the Internet open,
>inclusive and resilient: evolvability."
YES!
This is what we see at work.
>Once again, I bow...middle path is a combination of all
>paths. Having said that, I have not seen enough evidence of
>evolvability for all inclusiveness. Here again, I bring my concern
>on outreach programs - as to assume that internet is limited to the
>existing framework -constituencies itself shows that outreach
>programs are not effective.
IMHO, this is because outreach has been successful. Outreach was
appropriate to permit multi-stakeholderism, but now it is
multi-stakeholderism itself that has enough grassroots momentum to
spark off multitudinal-stakeholderism.
jfc
>On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Alejandro Pisanty
><<mailto:apisanty at gmail.com>apisanty at gmail.com> wrote:
>Naresh,
>1. let's take an example from a developing country. How would an ISP
>- let's imagine, Sify, in India - get to influence IP address
>numbering and domain name policy? In APNIC, the NRO, and ICANN, the
>company did mighty well. There was a Naresh Ajwani in the NRO and in
>APNIC, a President of the company on the ICANN Board. Pretty mighty
>outreach and it was early times.
>To effect the same through non-multistakeholder mechanisms they
>would have had to intensely lobby a government, make active use of a
>pretty non-transparent revolving door with the regulator or
>ministries involved, then managed to get through there to the
>Foreign Office and the Permanent Mission in Geneva as well as the
>one in the UN in NY, government backing and representation also in
>the ITU, etc., right? Just one simple case. Call it but an existence
>proof if you woke up mathematically inclined.
>For updates on the outreach program is it possible that you could do
>a quick search on the proceedings of the latest ICANN meetings?? I
>understand that the latest stats are being prepared for the ICANN
>meeting in Singapore in a few days. As for the IGF, their
>registration stats are open. One can see there several thousand
>individuals and organizations which have had a say and an influence
>and which would have found closed doors in the traditional
>non-multistakeholder mechanisms.
>2. more than a middle path what we are seeing is a combination of
>all paths that prove productive while compatible with most
>principle-based frameworks. The sum - not the substraction that is
>implied in getting to the middle - is more powerful and provides for
>another important principle that has made the Internet open,
>inclusive and resilient: evolvability.
>Yours,
>Alejandro Pisanty
>On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Naresh Ajwani
><<mailto:ajwaninaresh at gmail.com>ajwaninaresh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Alejendaro,
>" ICANN has in motion several complementary outreach programs to
>increase participation, diversity and inclusion...."
>"Motherhood-and-applepie" statements are always liked but here
>specifics that can address concerns would help more: how many new
>constituencies have been added, especially since emerging economies
>started becoming important stakeholders of internet.
>At the cost of being more challenging, please educate me on
>empowerment and not on patronizing.
>"... The balance between the methods of both evolves in a
>complementary way, enriched by diversity......"
>I bow. Need for a middle path is the call.
>Regards & best wishes
>Naresh Ajwani
>On 13 Mar 2014 08:15, "Alejandro Pisanty"
><<mailto:apisanty at gmail.com>apisanty at gmail.com> wrote:
>Naresh,
>ICANN has in motion several complementary outreach programs to
>increase participation, diversity and inclusion. So do several other
>organizations. The statement that these do not exist is counterfactual.
>As for inclusion and multistakeholderism: if you look at the
>published statistics of ICANN participation and those of the IGF,
>you will notice that many otherwise disadvantaged or frankly
>excluded individuals and organizations have had a voice and
>influenced decisions over the years, which would not have had any
>access to them had they constrained themselves to in-country
>mechanisms. Slowly these too have adapte in many countries.
>Multistakehodlerism is not predicated ex-ante as a way to solve
>problems and make progress on the Internet and its governance. it is
>the way these were built. It was not built against democracy but as
>one more of the ways of democracy. Many contrapositions of
>multistakeholder processes against democracy are flawed by either a
>narrow choice of definitions of democracy or an insufficient view of
>how the two are complementary. The balance between the methods of
>both evolves in a complementary way, enriched by diversity and
>facilitated by the loose coupling that gives the Internet its
>remarkable resilience against most threat models known to date.
>Yours,
>Alejandro Pisanty
>On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Naresh Ajwani
><<mailto:ajwaninaresh at gmail.com>ajwaninaresh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>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."
><<mailto:GShatan at reedsmith.com>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;
> <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>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."
> <<mailto:GShatan at reedsmith.com>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 desirablewhat 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 resourceshuman, 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: <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org>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'; <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>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 desirablewhat 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 resourceshuman, 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: <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org>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: <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>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 (<http://www.is-journal.org>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
> > <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
><mailto:discuss at 1net.org>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
>--
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>Facultad de Química UNAM
>Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
><tel:%2B52-1-5541444475>+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
><tel:%2B525541444475>+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS
><tel:%2B525541444475>+525541444475
>Blog: <http://pisanty.blogspot.com>http://pisanty.blogspot.com
>LinkedIn:
><http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty>http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
>Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
><http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614>http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>
>Twitter: <http://twitter.com/apisanty>http://twitter.com/apisanty
>---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, <http://www.isoc.org>http://www.isoc.org
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>
>
>
>--
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>Facultad de Química UNAM
>Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
><tel:%2B52-1-5541444475>+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
><tel:%2B525541444475>+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS
><tel:%2B525541444475>+525541444475
>Blog: <http://pisanty.blogspot.com>http://pisanty.blogspot.com
>LinkedIn:
><http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty>http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
>Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
><http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614>http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>
>Twitter: <http://twitter.com/apisanty>http://twitter.com/apisanty
>---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, <http://www.isoc.org>http://www.isoc.org
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20140313/49957937/attachment.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list