<html>
<body>
On 09:13 13/03/2014, Naresh Ajwani said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">"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....."<br><br>
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.
</blockquote><br><br>
Naresh,<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
The situation originates in the currently imposed regional dominant
vision
(<a href="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</a>
) 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).<br><br>
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
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality_control">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality_control</a>. 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.<br><br>
1. Counter-war:<br>
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. <br>
<br>
2. To try to modify the agoric entanglement of the context. <br>
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.<br><br>
3. To introduce an inflexion, <br>
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.<br><br>
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). <br><br>
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
<a href="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</a>
)<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">"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."</blockquote><br>
YES!<br>
This is what we see at work.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.</blockquote><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>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.<br>
<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:31
AM, Alejandro Pisanty
<<a href="mailto:apisanty@gmail.com">apisanty@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>Naresh,
<dd>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. <br>
<dd>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.
<dd>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.
<dd>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.
<dd>Yours,
<dd>Alejandro Pisanty<br>
<dd>On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Naresh Ajwani
<<a href="mailto:ajwaninaresh@gmail.com">ajwaninaresh@gmail.com</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Alejendaro,
<dd>" ICANN has in motion several complementary outreach programs to
increase participation, diversity and inclusion...."
<dd>"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.
<dd>At the cost of being more challenging, please educate me on
empowerment and not on patronizing.
<dd>"... The balance between the methods of both evolves in a
complementary way, enriched by diversity......"
<dd>I bow. Need for a middle path is the call.
<dd>Regards & best wishes
<dd>Naresh Ajwani
<dd>On 13 Mar 2014 08:15, "Alejandro Pisanty"
<<a href="mailto:apisanty@gmail.com">apisanty@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>Naresh,
<dd>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.
<dd>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.
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>Yours,
<dd>Alejandro Pisanty<br>
<dd>On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Naresh Ajwani
<<a href="mailto:ajwaninaresh@gmail.com">ajwaninaresh@gmail.com</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>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.
<dd>"..... 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....."
<dd>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.
<dd>"....... 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�)......."
<dd>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.
<dd>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.
<dd>Regards & best wishes
<dd>Naresh Ajwani
<dd>On 12 Mar 2014 12:00, "Shatan, Gregory S."
<<a href="mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com">GShatan@reedsmith.com</a>>
wrote:
<dd>>
<dd>> Naresh:
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> Here are my thoughts on and understanding of the process.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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).
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> Greg Shatan
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> From: Naresh Ajwani
[<a href="mailto:ajwaninaresh@gmail.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:ajwaninaresh@gmail.com</a>]
<dd>> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 9:57 PM
<dd>> To: Shatan, Gregory S.
<dd>> Cc: George Sadowsky; michael gurstein;
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<dd>>
<dd>> Subject: Re: [discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is
globalized? (:-)
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> Dear Greg,
<dd>>
<dd>> ".......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...."
<dd>>
<dd>> Would you please let us know that how this process addresses
minority representation?
<dd>>
<dd>> U wud appreciate that democracy is not only about majority or so
explained consensus but ensuring the rights of minorities too.
<dd>>
<dd>> Regards & best wishes
<dd>>
<dd>> Naresh Ajwani
<dd>>
<dd>> On 11 Mar 2014 22:10, "Shatan, Gregory S."
<<a href="mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com">GShatan@reedsmith.com</a>>
wrote:
<dd>>
<dd>> <snip>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>> <snip>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> Michael:
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> Actually, your presumptions are incorrect. This is not how
multistakeholderism and consensus actually works, at least not within the
ICANN GNSO.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> I would urge you to familiarize yourself more with
multistakeholderism in practice at ICANN (and elsewhere) before you jump
to conclusions about its application.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> Greg Shatan
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> From:
<a href="mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org">discuss-bounces@1net.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org</a>] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
<dd>> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 5:04 PM
<dd>> To: 'George Sadowsky';
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<dd>> Subject: Re: [discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is
globalized? (:-)
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> George,
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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. .
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> Mike
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> From:
<a href="mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org">discuss-bounces@1net.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org</a>] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
<dd>> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 10:37 AM
<dd>> To: <a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a> List
<dd>> Subject: [discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is
globalized? (:-)
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> All,
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> Purpose: What topics in Internet governance should 1net focus
upon?
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> Context
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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
(<a href="http://www.is-journal.org">www.is-journal.org</a>) 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>
>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>
>
Illustration 1 - Social Layer Added to the Established Layered Model
<dd>>
<dd>
>
of Internet Governance
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> The authors state:
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> "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
<dd>>
<dd>> 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."
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> "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."
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> The space of Internet governance issues
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> Consider just the content layer for the moment.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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:
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>
>
- Addressing cybercrime activities effectively
<dd>>
<dd>
>
- Understanding and ameliorating the spam situation
<dd>>
<dd>
>
- ISP liability issues for content stored and/or transmitted
<dd>>
<dd>
>
- Consumer protection
<dd>>
<dd>
>
- Electronic document status (contracts, etc.)
<dd>>
<dd>
>
- Regulatory and legislative environment -- effects on Internet access
and pricing
<dd>>
<dd>
>
- Competition policy within country and internationally
<dd>>
<dd>
>
- Policy/support for community services
<dd>>
<dd>
>
- Culture with respect to private data of individuals (tracking,
advertising, etc.)
<dd>>
<dd>
>
- Intellectual property rights
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> I suspect that most everyone on this list can expand it with
their own issue of importance.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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?
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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?
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> Concluding �
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> Using the working definition of Internet governance adopted by
the WGIG in 2005:
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>
>
Internet governance is the development and application
<dd>>
<dd>
>
by Governments, the private sector and civil society,
<dd>>
<dd>
>
in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms,
<dd>>
<dd>
>
rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes
<dd>>
<dd>
>
that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> George
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> * * *
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>> * * *
<dd>>
<dd>> 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.
<dd>>
<dd>> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
<dd>>
<dd>>
<dd>> _______________________________________________
<dd>> discuss mailing list
<dd>> <a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<dd>>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" eudora="autourl">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>discuss mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<dd>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" eudora="autourl">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
</dl>
<dd>--
<dd>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
<dd> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
<dd>Facultad de Qu�mica UNAM
<dd>Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
<dd><a href="tel:%2B52-1-5541444475">+52-1-5541444475</a> FROM ABROAD
<dd><a href="tel:%2B525541444475">+525541444475</a> DESDE M�XICO SMS
<a href="tel:%2B525541444475">+525541444475</a>
<dd>Blog:
<a href="http://pisanty.blogspot.com">http://pisanty.blogspot.com</a>
<dd>LinkedIn:
<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty">
http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty</a>
<dd>Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614">
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614</a>
<dd>Twitter:
<a href="http://twitter.com/apisanty">http://twitter.com/apisanty</a>
<dd>---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico,
<a href="http://www.isoc.org">http://www.isoc.org</a>
<dd>. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . <br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
</dl>
</dl>
<dd>--
<dd>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
<dd> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
<dd>Facultad de Qu�mica UNAM
<dd>Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
<dd><a href="tel:%2B52-1-5541444475">+52-1-5541444475</a> FROM ABROAD
<dd><a href="tel:%2B525541444475">+525541444475</a> DESDE M�XICO SMS
<a href="tel:%2B525541444475">+525541444475</a>
<dd>Blog:
<a href="http://pisanty.blogspot.com">http://pisanty.blogspot.com</a>
<dd>LinkedIn:
<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty">
http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty</a>
<dd>Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614">
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614</a>
<dd>Twitter:
<a href="http://twitter.com/apisanty">http://twitter.com/apisanty</a>
<dd>---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico,
<a href="http://www.isoc.org">http://www.isoc.org</a>
<dd>. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . <br><br>
</dl><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
discuss@1net.org<br>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" eudora="autourl">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></blockquote></body>
</html>