Fwd: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Names for the Working Group on InternetGovernance

[Adam Peake]

Karl's later reply to my email.

Some good points about value of technologists.

Thanks,

Adam



>Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp
>Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 03:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
>Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com>
>To: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>cc: Milton Mueller <Mueller at SYR.EDU>, NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Names for the Working Group on InternetGovernance
>From: Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com>
>X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.0.3 (Seattle Slew)
>
>
>On Sat, 21 Aug 2004, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>(By-the-way, I didn't find anything you wrote to be offensive or
>insulting.  Rather I read it as a positive and thoughtful discussion
>of the nature of people needed to solve a particular set of problems
>with me as an example.)
>
>>He's not very diplomatic: well he's not!
>
>And you are quite correct.  ;-)
>
>I believe that issues should be raised clearly and without obscuring
>euphimisms.  I believe that social surgery should be done using
>bright lights with few shadows.
>
>That said, you are right that my technique does not work well in
>certain environments that thrive on, and benefit from, periods of
>indirect speech. I also find that such soft techniques do not work
>well in electronic communications where the feedback loop of
>face-to-face contact does not mitigate the misunderstandings and
>unintended affronts that happen in all dialogs.
>
>However, when it comes to the rights of people to govern themselves
>I feel that we have gone far, too far, down a road in which
>euphimism has become concession.  Few today are willing to draw a
>firm line.  I have watched and cringed as again and again "public
>interest" groups have given silent assent to ICANN when it committed
>mayhem on the principle of public participation.
>
>>And to the best of my knowledge he has no experience working in a
>>UN type environment, and no experience in ICT for development, no
>>background in WSIS.
>
>I'm not running for whatever role I'm being discussed for so much of
>this is moot.
>
>However, if I have no synoptic experience neither do many of the
>people I met at the meetings at the ITU and UN.  And, to look at it
>the other way round, from my perspective as a technologist I find
>that nearly all of those who participate, outside of a handful of
>IETF/IAB/ISOC folks, are woefully ignorant of the technology that
>underlays all of these discussions.
>
>The point is that *everyone* is inexperienced in one aspect or
>another - the crucial skill is tolerance for those who have not yet
>learned (but not tolerance for those who refuse to learn) and a
>willingness to put differences aside for a moment and help people to
>fully comprehend issues.
>
>>Karl is very interesting when talking about ICANN. I agree he was
>>marginalized on the board, but I also remember him doing little to
>>stop that happening.
>
>Don't forget that I had to bring legal action - which took 18 months
>- against ICANN to grant to me what is an "absolute right" under
>law.  So I look at the situation rather the other way round - that
>ICANN was being illegally obstinate and that it was ICANN that
>marginalized itself and acted beyond the limits of legal behaviour.
>
>To put it another way - who is going to obligate whatever structures
>of internet governence may arise to operate according to their
>charters?  It is not enough to simply define bodies and powers and
>procedures; somebody or something must be empowered to coerce
>adherence to charters.
>
>If the act of forcing ICANN, or any other body, to obey the law is
>considered an act that marginalizes the actor then I say more power
>to those who become thus marginalized!
>
>>He's strikes me as a bit of a maverick.  We need smart mavericks,
>>but not on WGIG which will be a multi-stakeholder group
>
>There is no doubt that I do hear a different drummer than do most
>people. But don't we want new ideas and "out of the box" thinking?
>I would suggest that one of the problems with internet governance
>has been too much stale thinking by those who follow the herd.
>
>You used the phrase "multi-stakeholder".  That always catches my attention.
>
>I do not accept the term "stakeholder" as a constructive concept.
>To my mind it is a euphemism that says "someone gets to be king and
>designate what groups get power and what groups are to be
>disenfranchised".  To my mind that kind of parcelling of authority
>to groups rather than people is not merely anti-democratic but also
>creates many opportunities for manipulation and gerrymandering.
>
>To my mind there is but one kind of "stakeholder": the living,
>breathing human being.  Corporations, organizations, "NGOs", and
>other such entities are merely aggregations of people and deserve no
>recoginition other than derived from the people who wish that entity
>to speak on their behalf on some matter or another.
>
>I accept the fact that sovereign nations have the ability to speak
>on behalf of their citizens because the concept of national
>sovereignty has moved well past what it was in the 17th century and
>rests in many, perhaps most, cases on at least the expression and
>theor, if not the reality, of popular sovreignty as it arose in the
>18th and 19th centuries.
>
>>And I really don't think he communicated well from the board.
>
>"From the board" or "to the board"?  Certainly I spoke more "from
>the board" to the community of net users than anyone then or since.
>
>As for speaking "to the board": It is hard to communicate to a body
>of people who have no ears.  It is amazing how often I tried to
>communicate with the board - it is unfortunate that ICANN has not
>published the email exchanges between its board members - and found
>that they were simply unwilling, or afraid, to listen.  Did you ever
>notice how annoyed ICANN's Chairman became when I took the time at
>board meetings to actually try to explore issues?
>
>But you are right, ICANN has made itself irrevent to the internet
>except with regard the economic and business practice regulation of
>one technology (the DNS) as that technology is slowly replaced in
>the minds of users by increasingly effective directories and search
>services.
>
>The real issue is the creation of principles and processes at the
>national and international levels while recognizing that the
>conception of what constitutes a state and its authority is
>undergoing the greatest change since the early 1800's.
>
>I hope that in our race to be pleasant and euphemistic that we don't
>create a world in which the role of a person on the internet is an
>attribute of the opinions of the groups to which that person is
>affilliated rather than the opinions, beliefs, needs, and desires of
>the person himself/herself.
>
>I believe that when facing the issues that confront us that clearly
>articulated positions and creation of firm frameworks of principle
>are required.  I do not believe that these will arise quickly, if
>they are to arise at all, from a process that rejects all
>confrontational interactions and feeds solely on euphimisms.
>
>               --karl--