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

[Naresh Ajwani]

Dear Greg,

To all your responses and comments, my submission is as under:

My understanding of multistakeholderism is not pseudostakeholderism,
atleast not a club where new membership depends upon the existing members
as some one has recently remarked:

" Internet shows us how small the world is ...
But a missing plane shows, how big our planet is ..."

Facts at times sound pointing fingers or accusations and that in my
opinion, is intolerance out of ignorance.  Outreach isn't a process but
results. Quantifiable!

Regards & best wishes

Naresh Ajwani
On 14 Mar 2014 01:24, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan at reedsmith.com> wrote:

>  Naresh:
>
>
>
> My responses are in-line below.
>
>
>
> Greg Shatan
>
>
>
> *From:* Naresh Ajwani [mailto:ajwaninaresh at gmail.com<ajwaninaresh at gmail.com>]
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:25 PM
> *To:* Shatan, Gregory S.
> *Cc:* michael gurstein; George Sadowsky; discuss at 1net.org
> *Subject:* RE: [discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is
> globalized? (:-)
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> >>If you believe in "all inclusiveness and no spiritless processes," you
> should be firm supporter of multistakeholderism.  Anyone can participate in
> the ICANN multistakeholder process.  Find the group you fit into and join
> it.  In many cases, you don't even need to be a member of a particular
> Stakeholder Group (in the organizational sense) to participate in a Working
> Group.
>
> "..... 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.
>
> >>I would echo the question asked earlier - what is your experience in
> consensus-driven, multistakeholder processes where the spirit was lacking?
> I've served on about half a dozen ICANN working groups, and in my
> experience, such spirit was very much present.  Indeed I would say that the
> actual environment was reasonably close to the "ideal" environment.  It's
> not an Olympian ideal, really - a working version of the "ideal" is
> essentially achieved in every working group.
>
> >>I'm not sure what you mean by "protecting" minority views.  For example,
> if the "minority view" in a working group is that international NGO (INGO)
> acronyms should be withheld from registration as gTLDs, and the consensus
> at the end of the process is that INGO acronyms should not be withheld from
> registration, how would you "protect" the minority view?  At some point,
> you need a recommendations, and there is no way to accommodate divergent
> views on a particular result.  I don't think this issue is limited to
> multistakeholder decision-making.  Perhaps you need to explain what you
> mean by "protection" and "minority view." Also, how "minority views" in the
> sense of policy development recommendations can be "protected."
>
> 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 isn't a fact at all - it's an opinion or an accusation.  In my
> opinion, it is an accusation that is without merit.  Saying it's a fact
> doesn't make it so.  I have seen no evidence of this in ICANN working
> groups.
>
> "....... 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.
>
> >>I don't see how my comments strengthen your concern.  Also, as indicated
> by other responders, there have been various outreach and engagement
> programs to expand the existing stakeholder groups.  For instance, in
> Buenos Aires and again in Singapore, there are meetings and other outreach
> to the local business communities to get them more involved in ICANN and to
> join the Commercial Stakeholders Group.  Here's an example of outreach from
> today:
> http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/cto-icann-others-to-host-first-commonwealth-dns-forum/173571/  This article may also be of interest:
> http://www.zdnet.com/icann-wants-more-apac-voices-to-step-up-7000022712/.  As to your last "question," I'm not sure I understand the point you are
> trying to make.
>
> 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.
>
> >>I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean.  Perhaps you could
> restate this in more length, particularly explaining what you mean by "due
> position" and "protections" and why it is the right of any group holding a
> minority viewpoint to have their views protected.  For instance, if you
> were in a group setting environment policy, how would you protect the
> viewpoint that climate change is a hoax?
>
> 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/20140315/bd80aa0f/attachment-0001.html>