This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to email@example.com. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.
[I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees
fouadbajwa at gmail.com
Sat Dec 7 04:07:31 CET 2013
> The value to be obtained from "1net" is obviously still to be determined,
> but see below regarding "duplication" or lack thereof.
Don't you think being I* organization initiated and driven is already
the first speed breaker on the path neutrality? The only rationality
so far is that this process was started independently by an I* meet
and mostly private sector. Private sector is already fairly well
organized and what I've seen from my participation in the MAG is that
the private sector has interchangeably acted as both technical
community and private sector and anyone is free to do so. I just don't
see why another forum will be able to address IG and IPP related
issues quote n quote "neutrally"?
> I can't speak for the I* organizations regarding whether they "feel that their
> representation amidst existing IG or IPP related settings and arrangement was
> somehow very weak and placing them as a stakeholder group amongst CS as technical
> community or academia was not sufficient" but I can certainly speak for ARIN -
> With respect to IGF/MAG/CSTD, ARIN believes that "the Internet Governance Forum
> (including its set of regional preparatory meetings) as an important catalyst for
> enhanced cooperation. The IGF format is unique among international conferences on
> Internet matters in that it provides for open information-sharing and discussion
> between all interested stakeholders, and ARIN's support of the Internet Governance
> Forum helps insure continuation of this important venue for multistakeholder dialogue."
> <https://www.arin.net/announcements/2013/20130830.html - ARIN provides additional
> support to the 2013 internet governance forum (IGF) meeting in Bali, Indonesia>
> ie. there has been no concern about representation being "weak" and/or "insufficient".
EC was only brought back to the table in 2010-11, that would mean ARIN
might be looking at IGF beyond just EC. Anyways, that would mean that
if ARIN is satisfied with the current arrangements then why the need
to participate in just another effort with the same people? Why not
enhance and strengthen existing arrangements. The stated approach
could have also ben taken under Internet Governance for Development at
the IGF that was an open space for such ideas but was opposed by PS
for a longtime. Being neutral I believe is in not defined anywhere for
any I* organization or stakeholder group. There would be no need for
such forums in the first place if all interests and lobbying was JUST
for the reasons of being neutral?
> Strange, I haven't heard anyone indicating that they "felt weak in their
> existing IG/IPP settings and arrangements..." Could you provide some
> references to these members statements that lead you to such assertions?
Then why 1net? If all is strong and well organized, why "another" IG
effort? Why not go forward and strengthen the GNI efforts, build
another AC/OC at ICANN since its already trying to move into the
political space with its limited mandate of DNS/IP management?
>> There is duplication of effort.
> There is? Please describe which existing effort today provides a neutral,
> focused initiative to discuss selected Internet issues with the intent of
> working towards actionable collaborative solutions. While one might reference
> the IGF, I don't believe that "focused" and "actionable solutions" come to mind,
> at least in its present form and prior to various improvements that are being
> considered. Certainly ICANN, the RIRs, and the IETF all work on various problems
> toward actionable solutions, but the level of focus varies from measures of
> technical coordination to extremely technical protocol efforts, and while open
> to all participants, I'm not certain that those not already participating would
> necessarily identify them as neutral forums for problem solving.
Somehow we tend to put the stakeholder group activity that happens at
IGF and ICANN behind us in these discussions when we try to assert
something new is more useful than an existing arrangement. I want to
learn why cooperation of all stakeholder groups could not be unified
at IGF? Was it because no one thought of it or its because interests
are variable for each interest group? This is indeed a duplication of
effort that has been done in the past within the IGF community to
converge on similar issues and build possible bridges on certain
issues. I would be amused to see how the 1Net addresses the issue of
Human Rights, Network Neutrality, Freedom of Expression and Access
with out hitting traditional walls when the stakeholders do debate
such issues at the IGF. Trust me, talking about EC beyond the IGF or
the UN has no legitimacy and rationality.
I know for a fact that when we in CS feel strong about something or
have similar issues to converge on, we have various activities within
our stakeholder group, a small but relevant example is best bits that
helps us converge on similar ideas on which members may have different
point of views or understandings in the broader group. I have been
part of meetings in Geneva where members and coordinators of CS, TC,
PS and some Gov groups have sat down and discussed points of unified
views. Such efforts have been done in the past but when it comes to
going the interests table such as MAG, we see its end.
> Given the numerous challenges in Internet coordination that we have today
> (e.g. spam, surveillance, child protection, copyright enforcement, anonymity,
> botnets/DDOS/cybersecurity, network neutrality, freedom of speech, privacy,
> user tracking, etc.), I think it's safe to say that whatever efforts have
> been made to date may indeed be excellent from the perspective of education
> and capacity building, but don't seem to be measurably reducing the list of
> issues outstanding. In that manner, they're not duplicative to what "1net"
> could potentially accomplish, at least from my perspective.
Its interesting how I've heard similar talk at the ITU WSIS Forum and
many other meetings in the UN. Somehow the rationality for creating
something anew is usually promoted with such phrases. The potential
accomplishment we expect from 1Net is a bit blurred in its formation.
Why not start the 1Net irrespective of the Brazil meeting instead of
attempting to give the meeting some kind of legitimacy within the
scope of global IG and IPP? That would be a good first step to prove
that all the members of 1Net take a stand on an issue instead of
trying to prove an activity valid.
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
More information about the I-coordination