[ncdnhc-discuss] NCSO Formation Efforts in conjunction with ccSO

[Dave Crocker]

YJ,

At 11:06 PM 8/29/2001, YJ Park wrote:
>No substantial discussion especially from Asia, Africa, Europe,

Please forgive me, but there has been no substantial discussion at 
all.  Not by anyone.

Individual contributors to this group clearly have their own concerns, but 
this group, AS A GROUP, has never pursued the topic of concerns that 
pertain to the NCDNHC.

It is quite easy to offer many explanations for the failure.  Differences 
in culture might well be one of those reasons.

However the fact remains that this "constituency" has yet to behave like a 
constituency.  That is, it has never discussed or decided matters based on 
any sort of coherent "NCDNHC" perspective.

ANother fact that remains is that the group is quite open and, therefore, 
failure to contribute to discussion are just that.  Failure.  Individual 
choices not to contribute.

Those choosing not to contribute may have a wide range of 
reasons.  Certainly it is reasonable to be afraid of being personally 
attacked.  Yet this group has decided not to provide any sort of sanctions 
against personal attacks.  If anything, it appears that constantly 
attacking people helps one get selected for adcom...


>If this Internet Governance model was to be proposed in Asia

If ICANN were an Internet governance model, then the manner in which it was 
proposed might be a matter of concern.  However ICANN has a much narrower 
scope, and it has an operational mandate.

Responsibility for reliable administration and operations often dictates 
making decisions in a timely fashion.  That requirement makes it impossible 
to pursue decision-making in the much more friendly, but much less 
efficient, manner that involves putting everything into a fishbowl and 
waiting until everyone everywhere is happy.


>from its beginning in very Asian manner, many people from West

Again, please forgive me, but one of the things I have learned in recent 
years is that the Asian manner is a) different in different parts of Asia, 
and b) often relies on a very strong authority hierarchy.  What is 
presented as an open exchange often is, in fact, highly constrained by that 
hierarchy.  In other words, the outcome often depends more on who is in 
charge than on everyone being happy with the outcome.


>On the other hand, people in Asia has a power to choose the right
>governnance body for themselves.

One of the other things that I have learned in recent years is that 
countries in Asia appear to have less desire (or, perhaps, ability) to work 
cohesively than do, for example, countries in Europe.  Even Asian countries 
quite close to each other, such as ASEAN, demonstrate minimal collaboration 
for regional benefit.

In other words, it is easy to label a group, such as "NCDNHC" or "Asian", 
or "Western", but it often does not mean that the group has any cohesive 
purpose or cohesive view.

Certainly the NCDNHC has failed to articulate such cohesion, in spite of 
multiple years of activity.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464