Re: [ga] Minutes: CS Internet Governance Caucus -- First Meeting

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Danny,
   
  It is interesting here that a good deal of energy is spent talking about users having a right to participation but then near the end of the meeting they talk about excluding people from their lists and participation in their group.
  "Egos are the destruction of so many good ideas"
  e

Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  CS Internet Governance Caucus- WSIS phase II meeting:
(More or Less) Official Minutes


(First meeting of Two) Thursday November 17: 230pm, CS
meeting room B

-Presentation of Agenda


1. Results

Hans- It is hard to figure out the way forward, we
need to digest what has just happened

Derrick- Moving with some speed, we don't have time to
take a break. Engage as quickly as possible.

Hans- ICANN has become a much more secure organization
than it was 48 hrs ago, the govs made a collective
decession.

Luca- Do we define the cacus define itself first or
wait to see what the forum is and then adapt to that.

POO (Jeanatte)- We have 2 meetings and I don't expect
us to have a final solution of the forum, these
meetings are a basis of future discussions.

Milton- ICANN has survived but not been endorsed. It
is impossible to declare that ICANN does only
day-to-day and not public policy. Also, US control of
the root. Also, it is unclear what happens with names
and numbers. All we know is that there will be no new
organization and there will be forum. Otherwise it is
quite muddled.

Ronda- There is wording about CCLTDs in the document,
as I understand it, ICANN still makes decisions about
who controls CCTLDs, the wording on this is not clear.
The weakness of the cacus and the document is that
there is no mention about the online community
feedback. It is not just a document but a process, the
process has a lot of countries objecting to what the
US is doing.

Andres- the forum points away from ICANN and to
something new.

Adam- Associates with Milton's point, if we don't see
a shift. The govs are not going away.

Avri- The forum vs. prinicipals. They are defiantly
separate. Fuzzy, but defiantly separate. I actually
think that the document on a slipperly slop. The forum
will keep the pressure on the US. As long as ICANN as
started to do the GAC reforms it is a slipperly slop.
In terms of the forum and the slippery sloop I am
enthusiastic. In terms of unfettered checks on
enforcement of cybercrime etc, it is a disaster.

Jeanettte- 2 isssues important. Forum, and oversight.
My concern was that the US would accept the forum at
the cost of not putting in a word about oversight. IT
has started a process and the forum.

Lucha- 2 things missing- root zone and no oversight.
We should
concentre on a strategy on what the UNSG should do.

Parminder- There are some things open. The GAC could
be made stronger, the public policy. The online
community is not respresented out there- there is no
online community, everyone has a stakeholder

Jeremy- The issue of gov oversight has been
compromised out of this doc, it hasn't gone away, but,
it may well re apeer in the Forum, it just clealy was
not workable in this conext

Peng- Agree with Avri. Prospects for civil society are
improved by this documents.

David- What we have seen is not going to change. WSIS
did not effect ICANN at all?It could not be more
important to organize yourself in a workable way and
draw in the rest of the world.

McTim- ICANN is neither strengthed or weakened, ICANN
wants admin. Control. The tech-community will not
accept non participation in anything

Bill- The European approach will eventually win out,
you don't have to create an intergovernmental org,
countries can get together. We started the forum
idea, we drove it, now as we move forward, they are
defiantly expecting us to play a leading role in the
forum in generating new ideas, they are going to have
no capacity to do research, analysis etc. We clearly
are at the point where we have to agree- if that means
that we can't include all IG cacus members and have to
reconstitute- we have to step up and make sure we have
the role of making new ideas?.

??????- State's are still central to public policy,
their notion of internet constituency is the citizens
who they provide internet service to, if we have a
different vision then we need to argue it

Wolfgang- This document embeds the principals of ICANN
and unilateral role into a document, the forum could
be a process to pressure this. The forum is vague, we
need to take the lead on the forum. The forum should
be run by the doers, the forum, even the US says, is
for civil society leadership and private sector
leadership

Bill- he doesn't mean us, he means ISOC

Wolfgang- Agrees with Bill, it is about more than
names and numbers.

Michael- I am surprised, I don't think this is about
ICANN at all. The US started out with control, they
still have control. I think that regulatory
competetion is good. I don't see the forum as any
different than WSIS.

Hans- A practical issue is how are we going to
participate in ICANN. It is very positive that we now
have a forum to look at broad public policies etc. If
we are going to have a voice in ICANN, how are we
going to do it? Attempts for CS to advise ICANN
through the forum on will probably meet by the
response that ICANN already has a GAC, so that means
that the forum might not accept input form the forum.

David- Totally upposed to Hans.

Jeanatte- Some people critic this cacus, things seem
better in the meeting than I thought they would.
Question? When does the MOU expire? My sense is that
the US is not happy with ICANN, what does the document
mean for the US Gov position?

Miltion- clarify what CS means. Moving forward, the
category of CS is very easily corroded, co-opted etc,
there is serious overalap with CS and other actors,
so, when it comes to organize the forum it will be
hard to keep this going. Those of you who are not
familiar with the setting up of ICANN, need to keep in
mind how CS in ICANN led to certain commercial
interests getting 3 votes at the expense of CS.

Anders- When it comes to the forum, it is important
not to get obsses about the structure. You have
reckognized the fact that countries should have a say.

Mctim- September MOU- we need to be involved as much
as possible , we need a better way to measure
consensus?

Ronda- ICANN asked who should have control of the
Internet, people who want control of the Internet are
still here, CS in its best mode is there pressuring on
behalf of citizens to prevent the private sector from
getting too much control, this asks about inclusivity
we need to have a much broader set of discussions what
is needed to protect the vested interests from
controlling the internet?

Jeremy ? likes bill framework ? IG caucus may have
been criticized for being political ? there are wide
diffenrces ? we need to reconstitue the framwkrk in
which work we acknowledge that, although we have come
togther on certain points like non-us status quo, but
we don't always do so for the same reasons, ie some
want no govs, some want more accoutabiltiy

Adam- do not obsess on process in regards to the forum


ITEM 2

Jeanette- the forum is going to be the basis of our
ongoing work

****Nisha- If you look at the debates, they are
actually debating what the Internet is, if we are
going go forward in this, we have to figure out who
the interent is for, what it is and why it matters to
US.

Jovan- The private sector can also protect the public
interest It is a question of promoting certain public
interests in regards to the internet. We have to
remember that we are entering into what amounts to a
face saving exercise for the US government, I think
there will be an exit stratagey built in for the US.
It is our job to push the public Interest.

Parminder- we do need to rethink what the internet is,
informal
coalition did this. We should talk about this where
whether or not we agree on it.

Hans- no one knows what the forum is going to be
right now, we should lobby and if we move force, we
might be able to have a lot of say in the matter.

Avri- The what is the internet discussion is
interesting but, in the end we will just end up
concluding it is all of those things. We have ideas,
but we need to move on the building of the forum right
now, we don't even need concensus, if we have two
good, different ideas, we can submit them both.

Miltion- I think we have a serious operational
problem. My belief is that the IG cacus as it
functions is the best foot we can put forward. We
don't have leaders, membership, etc. One option is two
bless the leadership we have, I can't help it, but I
said this 6 months ago. We are stuck with what we
have, but?.


ITEM 3

Izumi- presents photo albums as gift of thanks to Adam
and Jeanette on behalf of cacus (Thanks adam and
jeanette!!!!)

Avri- tension between to do something and do
organization. We need working groups and we need to do
more outreach. But, we need to get stuff done while
doing so.

Lucha- I am uncomfortable with talking about
restricting, this org could become identified with the
ego of one person, I think we should be loose and stay
loose.

Adam- One of the things we have been trying to do is
to work closely with other cacuses. This forum is
going to touch on thematic issues, we have to make
effort to include them. We also don't know what is
going to go on with the larger WSIS CS structures
after Friday.

Jeanette- In response to Milton. What I value most
about IG cacus is that it is a platform for
discussing IG issues for everyone. Most of the people
who are on the list are people who have never spoken
up. Thus, making voting etc, could result in
unreliable resultsÅDOn the other hand, we risk being
completely disfucntional. New members for example,
join and then immediately disagree with everything we
have done. Our statements are compromise positions
that do not always
results of equal participation and some people are not
always happy with that.

Bill Drake- 4 things. There are meetings tomorrow.
There is going to be a discussion about CS going
forward tommorow. It is going to be a challenge about
keeping the different groups together. As the agenda
narrowed from phase I to phase II, it is going to be
diffiecult to keep those people engaged if there is
not an overaching activity. The IG forum is going to
be primarily for people interested in IG issue.

2nd point. CPSR is going to transfer the listserve. I
think we ought to link it to the forum webspace.

3rd- the cacus needs to be reconstituted, there are
280 people on the listserve, maybe 15-20 on the ground
who are working here on the ground contributing. We
can't have people we don't know objecting to work that
is being done here from around the world. We don't
respresnt them. We need to perhaps make a statement of
principals that says what we are about, and, if you
don't agree you aren't part. We need to work out what
it means to be part of the group, we need to be able
to close on issues and texts. We need to replace the
listserve as a tool as well. Perhaps that we should
apply for a grant from ford foundation
.

Michael Geist- The broadening of the issue to include
other issues such as privacy etc is going to make
other more established groups get interested in IG as
those issues come under the umbrella of IG.

Adam- Some of the more established groups are north
American focused and are not well placed to lead on
international policy. While we look narrow, we are
actually more broad in our participation than most of
the other civil society lists. When people come in
late with total different perspectives, it sometimes
lead us to productive deleberation as well as to
realize when we should not focus on certain issues and
focus on others instead (ie oversight) I think what we
have done has worked very well so far.

G- Non internet users have been very unrepresented in
the IG internet caucus, we need to figure out how to
create new structures to be more representative. We
should look at disruptions very positively- the
internet is a disruption.

Michael Gerstien- I participate and I moniter the list
on behalf of a large number of people, telecentres
America, 10 000 telecentres + more in Europe. I am
designated to moniter because they don't have the
resources to do so themselves. I am concerned that
the issues in the forum are going to be important to
this ICT4D stakeholder, the challenge is how to
represent you discussions of them, their position,
their voices.

Lucha- I don't think you can speak about open
architecture in the
Internet but have closed architeture here. Generarte
good ideas, steer the directon. Closed group will
equal closed ideas. People in the closed group will
bring in more like minded friends etc. I like that
people from other places like ICANN are on the lists,
it shows that things are open and we have nothing to
hide.

Milton- We have a serious issue here, we can have an
open list, but we need to have clear decessions going
into the forum. How can we evolve the IG cacus into a
backbone of CS participation in the fourm. Bill is
correct in his diagnos of the problems, how long does
it take? The MSUC took 3 months to write a chater, but
then, how do we legitimate a charter? Its not that I
want to exclude people, its just that we need to do
something go forward.

Slobodan- We all gathered here for some change. We
need to secure our position to lobby whoever is
organizing the forum. There are 2 positions (Milton)
basically focus on getting our position effectively to
decesion makers, (others) we are broad group whether
we want to create an open group or whether we want to
focus on pursuing certain ends.

Bill- I did not suggest the gov list should be closed,
I did not
suggest that we should not partipate in the list, I
did not suggest that we are a closed little group. We
do not have a monopoly on participating in IG form on
behalf on CS. I am just saying that a certain group of
people who agree need to work things through in a
structured matter. We have to operate in a struture.

Deserai- I do not think that IG cacus has a legitimacy
problem. I
think that more groups need to come in.

Izumi- the architeture thus far has worked, I am not
sure it has
worked perfectly. We need much better, more clearly
defined roles. There is also a huge problem with
non-english speakers in regards to posting on the
list, participating in meetings and even to reading
messages on the list. I think it is largely an
experiment, I think we should leave some space to make
mistakes and continue the experiment.

Avri- I endorse the idea the we need to keep the cacus
alive, whilst having another group that is focused on
the forum. The cacus can then bring people in and
educate them about the issues of IG. There is one
thing that this group is the foremost expert on, and
that is what the forum needs to be. We are the experts
on that.

Adam- Outreach, do we think that telecentres would
want us to try to help them? there is sometime an
sense that people think that we are trying to tell
other experts how to do their business, in some
respect we need to find a way to do outreach and
education in a way that the other actors think is.

Jovan- There is a Diplo conference in Malta in
Feburary on how to
structure 10-12th the forum, promotes

Peng- We need a globalization representation, gender,
geographic
diversity, The working langague is most easily
English, but we need to be aware.

Michael Gerstein- people need to participate in
discussions that 
concern them,,
END





__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com
  


		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.