[Mmwg] VS: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: IGP: Internet Governance Forum Takes Shape

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

Dear list
 
Looking forward to the IGF and thinking about the inclusion of the "controversial issues", we should first look into todays challenge and what is going on with the IANA function. The DOC has posted a call "to explore options for Contractor performance of three interdependent technical Internet coordination functions." This includes  the coordination of the assignment of technical protocol parameters, the performance of administrative functions associated with root management and  the allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 delegations of IP address space. 
 
The present contract between ICANN and US DOC terminates end of March. While the main discussion on US and ICANN concentrated on the MoU - which terminates in October 2006 - the IANA contract goes to the heart of the "controversy". 
 
It is interesting that the DOC asks potential respondents to describe their existing relationships with, inter alia "f. national governments or public authorities associated  with specific ccTLD domains" which would enable respondents to successfully perform each of the three functions. 
 
But more important is that also the new contract would be under "all applicable US laws, regulations, policies and procedures". 
 
When the IGF starts in October 2006, I guess, the deal is already done with regard to the IANA function. 
 
Best regards
 
wolfgang
 
    

________________________________

Lähettäjä: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org puolesta: David Allen
Lähetetty: to 23.2.2006 23:05
Vastaanottaja: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Aihe: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: IGP: Internet Governance Forum Takes Shape


[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people]

Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message!
_______________________________________

Definite thanks to IGP for the wrapup on consultations.

Below, comment on one element:

At 10:48 AM -0500 2/21/06, Milton Mueller wrote:

	Internet Governance Forum Takes Shape After Geneva Consultations

	...


	... business and Western governments urged the IGF to avoid anything controversial or anything that intersected with the activities of existing international organizations. They tended to favor spam and cybercrime as focal topics. ... It became apparent that efforts by the EU and Australia to keep the IGF away from those topics was motivated by their attempt to resolve the unfinished WSIS business by means of private, bilateral, government-to- government negotiations with the United States. ... if the truly important and controversial issues were removed from the Forum ...


On one side - Steps to prosecute the 'unfinished WSIS business' through bilateral negotiations and not via IGF, if not surprising, are important to be brought out into the public air.

On the other - Some, if not a lot, of the search for less incendiary lead-off topics/themes appeared to follow a different motivation, to wit:  Since the whole process has been born fraught, so that prospects depend on some care in design, let's start where there may be at least a little possibility for commonalities.  Then, with any success and some practice with new protocols, perhaps we can progress to the dicier stuff.

That strikes me anyway as having some merit.  But - It seems that any theme/s selected will prove, like it or not, a vehicle to bring the root conflict back into play.  Indeed, comments even in the consultation time and again put the same old struggle on the table - it was business as usual.  (Nor, likely, was anyone much surprised.)

In a frame, posted in my contribution at IntGovForum <http://intgovforum.org/contributions.htm> , there is reason to see how most of the themes we might suggest - regardless of whether benign - will indeed carry on the 'unfinished WSIS business.'

Only one example is Multilingualism, at least if that is defined as ML.ML in the browser address bar.  A particularly hot potato at the moment, ICANN is most belatedly headed in one direction, while several significant language groups with non-Roman scripts are firmly underway with alternate roots and a quite large swath of users, already.  The mooted balkanization.  Here is a topic (really most pressing - 5 billion users at stake) seemingly without the fireworks attached - but actually it is the old, unfinished business.

And actually, isn't that just what we want?  A topic with bite and global impact, where so far there have been few pyrotechnics - but where we can indeed carry on the unfinished work.  Why else go to all the trouble, unless we can actually get on with what has lain unresolved for at least (a lot more than) five years ... ?

But - To do so surely means getting at the underlying differences in approach; let's call them underlying frameworks, almost always unstated but also utterly determinative.  That is what, so far, by and large, has not happened.  Now is our chance.

In this regard, Bill Drake suggested cross-cutting topics as one good bet.  I for one would benefit from learning more of what Bill sees to define 'cross-cutting.'  Of course my  hope is that such might be opportunity to bring unstated assumptions to the surface, the ones that keep us apart.  That is where we must concentrate our work, if we have a hope actually to see results.

Only when we are brave enough to get at the deep assumptions that separate us, then will we have the chance to cobble together more explicit, practical bridges.  IMHO.

David