[Mmwg] Re: IGP: Internet Governance Forum Takes Shape

[David Allen]

[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response 
goes to the entire [plenary] list.  Also posted, 
in line with earlier responses, to [mmwg]. 
Kindly use individual addresses for responses 
intended for specific people]

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

I will speak only plainly here, to wit:

At 8:49 AM +0100 2/24/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>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.

The deal is not done.  It has not been done - for quite some years now.

The US has, and will, act.  And that has been a 
contorted set of steps, reversals, feints and 
simply ambiguous muddles, along with some good 
stuff.  And so that will go on.  But so has the 
rest of the world acted, and continues to act. 
That has led - in my view, fortunately - to a 
forum where these matters can be engaged, 
hopefully in a useful way that previous history 
has not been able to find.  The guerilla war of 
the past decade or so has repeatedly stalemated; 
in my view, we do not need more of that same.

Indeed, the task at the moment is to shape a 
forum where these questions _do_ find some way 
forward - the entire point of my post below.

>
>Best regards
>
>wolfgang

In this regard, I note Bill's sage review of 
dance and politics - certain suzerainty is better 
than the abyss, huh?  And Milton's, too.

As to relevance for modalities (this is 
cross-posted), one of the immediate questions is 
topic or theme.  Milton has particularly spoken 
out for getting to the point - this could hardly 
be more to the point.  My own view however is 
that, rather than wave a red flag at the bull in 
the ring, we might start with something 
(seemingly) less inflammatory.  But most that we 
are likely to consider will - in the end - bring 
up the same fundamental differences.

Whichever topic, there will be real motion 
forward - after ten or so years - only if we do 
bring those deep, implicit, fundamental 
differences up, out and onto the table.  IMO.

David

>
>    
>
>________________________________
>
>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
>
>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