IGFTF - (was Re: [ga] Coalition For ICANN Transparency)
Vittorio, Danny and all, I reviewed that Tunis documents, reports, etc. I suggest that we (people interested in supporting users rights and needs) try to take advantage from it. Until now we were alone in front of ICANN, which was able to "duly ignore" us. I do not think that at this stage the IGF will be anything else than an icanntalarge.org of a certain magnitude (may be also a support for NGN work?). But we should take some leadership there, while it is still un infancy. So we can use the IGF to make pressure on ICANN and our ICANN positions to push and contain the IGF: our strength is to know the background, the people, the needs, the historic. What puzzles me since I am involved in the 'Internet Governance' is the lack of transparency _we_ accept between constitution, law and Justice. What Danny and Richard are mainly interested in could be named Prosecution and Domain Name Owner Representation. In some cases this GA is involved through comments in law writing (ICANN positions, etc.). But we all know from Dr. Lessig that the "Internet constitution is in the code". This means in the standards, in the RFCs. In a world where Internet is more and more daily used to support most of the decisions, commerce, news, education, health, etc. it means that a key part of that world constitution (all the International system by which we live - WTO, WIPO, IATA, WHO, FAO, patents, etc. and supporting UN organisation) is decided by a few IETF geeks. This long before we are informed and democracy can patch the results, obliged to abide law which may conceptually flawed or with perverse effects, subject to the sole Supreme Court judgment of the market. I think this is not acceptable. In the past ISOC had set-up the ISTF (Internet Societal Task Force). I understand it suffered from a too large scope, imprecise definitions, may be (I just have hearsays) confusion corrected too late. Anyway, "istf.org" is on hold by ISOC and "istf.net" by ... ICANN. My intent is to present an IETF Draft documenting the creation of an IGFTF (Internet Governance Forum Task Force). It will document and elect an IGFAB (IGF Advisory Board) able to share in the IETF Internet standard process to represent the interests of the Users, _before_ the RFC are carved in the stone. The same in ITU NGN Standardisation process, and in ISO and JTC1/Specialised Committees. I am interested in: 1. any of your comments and suggestions. 2. my initial idea was to build it within ISOC, but there does not seem to be any interest - as there is no interest in the IETF to take advantage from the ISOC Chapters local/user experience. So, I suppose that the IGFTF will be free to call on member of ISOC and on local IGF initiative to channel comments, positions and votes. The digital ecosystem convergence calls for a general point of view anyway the IGF may have. 3. I will propose an IGFAB partly elected and partly resulting from MoUs. The IGFAB's role would be to issue governance related considerations in response to IETF, ICANN, ITU, Govs etc. Last CallsL. They would be based upon inputs from the users, regularly polled through the IGFTF. - please suggest organisations you would see of interest for such MoUs (I suppose ALAC, icannatlarge.org, Consumer organizations, NICSO, MINC, ISOC, etc.) - please indicate if you would be interested in participating into the moderated/filtered mailing list I will set-up to work on the proposed Draft (as advised per the IETF process). I note that interested people should be familiar with RFC 2026 to understand how the IGFTF Draft can be introduced as an information RFC, how it can contribute positively without changing the Internet standard process rules. The reading of RFC 3774 which lists some of the problems faced by the IETF, and of RFC 3869 where the IAB documents the need of public funding and development priorities, would probably help. The threat upon the Internet standard process is what I had to do this year: to fight a technical doctrine _after_ the work on it was engaged by an affinity group transformed in Working Group, instead of slightly correcting and seeing enforced the WG-Charter _beforehand_. (The example I refer to concerns a proposition of unilateral management of languages identifiers excluding a multilateral approach. A simple short reference to another RFC already addressing that issue, would have completed the Charter, satisfactorily for the users - but may be not the dominant commercial interests. The results of IESG lack of understanding, in an heavily loaded cultural, economical, political area, has lead to the IDNA failure, to the Tunis Monroe split, to the currently engaged balkanisation, to the current lack of imaginative innovation (a proper technical support of multilingualism demands), to the current loss of interest of multiple key people.) This kind of situation can only develop, as more and more users orientated IETF participants will feel supported by the IGF debate and possible related Internet deployment funding. The IETF would not survive it, while we need it to survive and develop but for sounds projects. In gathering the Governance concerns in an user oriented independent entity, we should remove that threat on the IETF and help it with the "IETF formatted" users inputs it needs. jfc At 10:16 23/11/2005, Victoria Bertola wrote: Danny Younger ha scritto:I spotted an interesting website at http://www.cfit.info/
|