<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
As to enforcement I'm with EFF on the theory that "Code is Law" and
that if we can control the protocols and if we can make the
requirements for open source be a required policy (IE - you can't
sell a router in most countries if not open to spyware inspection)
then we can prevent nations from being able to break the law in the
first place.<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/28/2013 12:40 PM, Avri Doria
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:A380ED3B-F7EB-4C67-8A3B-72E8BC81E311@ella.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
I don't go a far as some in seeing the ICANN version of the MS model as necessarily fit for prime time world government. Though I do see the evolution of new multistakeholder models as producing good democratic improvement to the current national and international methods of doing things in the general case.
I do however see the necessity of Internet governance not falling into the control of multi-lateral groups that include nothing but the second order representatives of governments that may or may not have a clue about what is going on. Mutlistakeholder governance of the Internet is the best option we have for Ig in my opinion. As far I am concerned ICANN is one of the models that is currently in the crucible and I find it useful both from a governance and an experimental perspective
I am fine with the multilateral junta having an equal voice to other stakeholders, but not a controlling voice or even a vetoing voice.
As for armies to enforce the edicts of MSism: that is what professional operational staff with their 'armies' of compliance cops are supposed to be for. Normatively, we make the policy, the professional staff use them to police the Internet using contractual compliance to make the Internet fit for the people. Or something like that.
avri
On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:09, Dan Krimm wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Using Bill's dichotomy of multi-stakeholderism versus multi-lateralism
(functional representation versus geographic representation), these are in
some sense two orthogonal ways to slice the pie. There seems to be a
notion among MSism advocates that MLism has been a failure and that MSism
can step in to save the day.
I'm highly skeptical about this. In fact, these two dynamics exist in and
around each other. At ICANN, MLism encroaches upon MSism in the form of
the GAC. At the national/international level of MLism (and to a lesser
extent at lower levels), MSism exists as "special interest lobbies." (When
I first became involved at ICANN, I was nonplussed to realize that "the
lobbyists are making all the policy directly without any
publicly-accountable representatives getting in the way!" I still think
there is an element of truth to this view, though I've expanded it
considerably since then.)
The practical difference between these two models right now is that MLists
have military and economic power to enforce their desires, while MSists
have voluntary good-faith consensus-building "on the honor system" to hope
for agreement along the way.
My gut feeling is that the MLists have viewed ICANN up until recently as a
bunch of kids playing in the sandbox. As long as nothing matters very
much, they don't pay attention. Which is why GAC is, from the GNSO PoV,
such a dismal failure.
But the shenanigans of GAC over the last couple years speak to growing
attention of the MLists, and I think it is just the start -- a warning shot
across the bow. If they don't get their way, they will figure out new
strategies to attack the MS system. There are ample opportunities for them.
Consider that root operators adhere to ICANN "rules" on a voluntary basis
as a path of least resistance. There is no military (i.e., ML regulatory)
enforcement of this, just a sort of "what else is better?" attitude.
FSo for example, one other point of attack for MLists would be to take
control over the root servers directly with their superior tools of
enforcement (ICANN doesn't have an army, though it is beginning to grow a
bit in economic resources). Then they can just ignore ICANN utterly and go
on and do whatever they choose. There are lots of ways to "route around
damage" and it depends on who is doing the routing and what they consider
"damage" to be.
Bottom line: I don't think MSism as implemented at ICANN has any
significant hope of scaling up to the level of influence that MLism has at
this time. To think that consensus can be achieved without hard
enforcement is dreamy, but not realistic to me. Stakeholders play along as
long as the negotiated solution is better than any alternative. But as
soon as some alternative to negotiated solution is better, they will
inevitably walk away from the table, and nobody is going to force them to
come back.
To think that you can govern the world without armies and national
(sometimes significantly private) wealth is to ignore the realities of
human nature.
To endeavor to take this path at this time is really scary to me. MSism is
not at all ready for prime time. It's just a bunch of kids playing in the
sandbox, and when things get real the parents will come in and lay down the
law with real enforcement. (I know this flips some folks' ideas of kids
and adults on its head: real adults rationally address consensus while kids
fight over power. But when it comes to matters of real power, adults in
positions of power become kids and often don't play well together.)
I'm all for trying to add MS dynamics to existing ML institutions, to
increase the breadth of popular voice in the system. But trying to take
ICANN as a platform to build on is just not workable, IMHO.
Institutional structures need to be built to channel human impulses in
productive ways, and the structures that exist at ICANN have betrayed clear
and systemic limitations. They only work to the extent that not *too* much
is depending upon them. The more serious things get, the more these
structures break down, and I see this only getting worse as the things that
ICANN does become increasingly important to power players outside of ICANN.
Dan
--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
At 10:57 AM -0400 10/28/13, Avri Doria wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_B20AE3CF-89B3-468C-8FF3-2FBC7C03CE6D";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Hi,
We will have to agree to disagree on this because I think that
multistakeholdersim builds on the other forms of democracy and is itself a
form of participatory democracy - we participate by voting in some parts,
by stakeholder participation in other parts, direct democracy (voting on
each and every issue) in yet other parts and rough consensus of
individuals in still other parts. The multistakeholder system itself is
formed of many democratic forms and leads to a larger more inclusive
democracy.
I see representational democracy as just one part of democracy, a critical
one, but not the entire story. And not one that works very will in the
absence of some other forms of participatory democracy.
For me a big part of ICANN is figuring out how to make this form of
participatory democracy work as well as possible to represent our
diversity of interests.
avri
On 28 Oct 2013, at 09:13, Avri Doria wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
Not all democracy involves direct representational democracy in choosing
each person.
The people in the Board who picked Fadi, were selected in various ways -
all of which are arguably forms of democratic (se)election. Include one
of which who was elected by representatives we had elected. (yes in that
case 3 of them had been selected by the Board)
Participatory democracy involves many forms, some of which a
representational voting events, some of which are nominating committee
events and some of which require someone who was elected, appointing
someone, who appoints someone else.
I did not elect the Supreme court justices or the Fed Chairman and yet
they are part of democracy.
For better or worse, Fadi was selected by people the community put in
the role to do such things.
As fat as I am concerned that is how representational democracty works
avri
On 28 Oct 2013, at 06:54, Jorge Amodio wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
What democracy ? I didn't vote for Fadi ... Or any of the board members
-Jorge
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Oct 28, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Avri Doria <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@ella.com"><avri@ella.com></a> wrote:
Hi,
In my view there is no better alternative to these experiments with
ever improving MSism at all level of the governance architecture. Sure
the ICANN implementation, as well as the other implementations in other
I* and IGF as well as in other subject areas, need great improvement,
But for now, in my opinion, the are the best approaches there are on
participatory democracy governance.
Of course we have to be careful what we are asking for. And we have
to be involved every step of the way.
Obviously we have a different view of scope.
avri
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 28 Oct 2013, at 02:01, Dan Krimm wrote:
To the extent that Fadi is trying to address Internet Governance
generally
(forgive me if I am reading too much into his actions?), that would
seem to
be out of scope, regardless of whether ICANN/IANA and general-IG both
would
benefit from internationalization.
As for multistakeholderism, in principle this all sounds great, but in
practice it seems to have fallen far short of its intended potential. In
practice is where the rubber hits the road, and in practice MSism at
ICANN
has recently fallen prey to ad hoc action when some "more equal than
others" stakeholders decide the outcome is not to their liking. They
apparently start to think along the lines of "God is not Mocked."
I see MSism as still an experimental work-in-progress, hardly with
all the
bugs worked out, and not necessarily "ready for prime time" in terms of
overall world governance. The only reason it has worked as free from
collapse at ICANN as it has up to now, I think, is that the big
Powers That
Be in the world (nations and big corporations) hadn't really seen
ICANN as
all that meaningful in their general scheme of things. The more
important
ICANN's actions become, the more the big powers will pound on it to shape
it to their desires. I think you've only seen the bare beginning of this
in the ad hoc shenanigans of the last few years. Just beginning to
rev up
the engines. MSism has not reached up out of the play-pen to play
with the
Big Boys yet, as far as I can tell, and it remains to be seen how it will
fare if it is brought up to the Big Time.
That's a big risk, IMHO. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
And if it doesn't turn out how you expected, what then? This whole MSism
experiment is a huge exercise in unintended consequences (in the gap
between theory and practice), if you ask me. It's worth doing the
experiment, but I'd be more comfortable if the experiment were closer to
completion before trying it out on anything *really* important. I don't
see it anywhere near that point, yet.
Dan
--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone
and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
At 12:59 AM -0400 10/28/13, avri doria wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
In terms of legitimacy, isn't one of the topics that needs to be
explored
internationalisation of ICANN, and IANA? Isn't that a topic at the
top of
the list? That seems to be in scope.
And the ICANN Board seems to be on-board as Fadi was meeting with a
subset
of them (including the Chair) and AC/SO leadership every morning. I
wasn't
in the meetings, and don't know who the rep from gnso was since Jonathan
wasn't there, so don't know what the level of buy in was, but I heard no
complaints on the ground.
So whatever we might say about scope creep Fadi is not being renegade.
As for scope creep Fadi and the leaders of the other I* seem to be
acting
in coordinated faction, so it is within their scope, and would seem
to be
in scope for any one of them to act on I*'s behalf in organizational
talks with governments on a meeting planning.
So, in this case at least, I see no fundamental problem of overreach by
Fadi. And, whether he fully understand what it means, he seems to be
carrying the banner of multistakeholderism into these discussions.
So, at least this once, I am not ready to join in Fadi-attack.
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:signature 92.asc ( / ) (005A3B0B)
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>