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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

It is not only interesting to read and hear the *Talk* of such openness
in participation much as ICANN originally did, and than to find out
that in or at the end of such meetings the actual action is discussion
as
to whom and how to restrict/censor participation in same.

It is not just ego's at play here but moral and ethical conviction.
Either you have it and demonstrate same, or you don't...


Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    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.
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827