On 7/10/2014 4:48 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Part of the problem is that over 15 years we have not managed to get more
>> NFP's involved and consequently not enough hands on deck.
> Addressing both Sam and Klaus: people in ICANN keep making the same mistake, again and again. The mistake is to assume that domain name policy is at the center of the universe and that if NGOs devoted to water rights, child welfare, religion, peace, housing, boat clubs, etc., etc., don't drop everything and devote most of their limited resources to ICANN then there is something wrong with the noncommercial stakeholder group within ICANN. It's an obvious fallacy to me.
>
> The simple fact is that domain name policy is a small and specialized (yet important) area of global policy, and most people in the nonprofit world, not to mention the for-profit world, are not that interested in it, and do not know enough about it to make a participatory contribution (unless they devote a year or so to coming up to speed). And it's not cost free. For most organizations, it makes no sense for them to invest the time and money to learn about it and participate in it because it is not central to their concerns. This is just a fact everyone needs to recognize and accept.
>
> Before you can have "hands on deck" you have to have sailors who "know the ropes" i.e. understand what the policy issues are, how they relate to ICANN's functions, what our position on those issues would be, what the consequences of various policy choices would me - not to mention how GNSO processes work.
>
> Indeed, it is often the case that the people who speak most loudly about adding participants rarely offer substantive contributions to actual domain name policy. I hear talk about increasing participation a lot, but not much about, say, the No-IP domain takedowns, the finer points of the EWG report, the merits or demerits of two-letter domains, the revision of the inter-registrar transfer policy, deeper thinking and creative proposals for ICANN accountability, etc.
>
>> been done by a few with very little, it's a miracle, but we should expect and
>> put into place what my old teachers wrote beneath many of my exam
>> papers: "could and should do better!".
> Always true. A truism. I suggest that "doing better" primarily means cultivating and locating expertise about DNS-related policy issues among that small segment of civil society groups who see themselves as being directly affected by those policy issues.
>
> MM
>
Dear Milton
Thank you for explaining your position and I note Wolfgang's approval.
I must say that it seems we are looking at IG from very very different
perspectives and what for you might be a fallacy is for you, is the
basis for legitimate IG for others. Reading your words it seems that the
main difference here seems to be that for me IG means to empower those
whose right we claim to represent and it does not mean to know it
better, propagating the claim that processes are to time consuming,
difficult and complicated for all, and to assume power based on a
claimed necessity for a elite.Allow me too explain this and to explain
why NGO's have a interest in IG and can and must be involved "on deck
and hands on".
The current task of ICANN producing a IANA transition process proposal
with an acceptable and legitimate stakeholder model is also a test of
the legitimacy of ICANN's own stakeholder model, and hence of ICANN
itself. As currently implemented the model is flawed. In all
constituency areas (including GAC) there is neither a breadth nor depth
of understanding and awareness, nor of engagement beyond the insular
community. This opens the door of questioning the legitimacy of the
model by powerful players. The emperor is losing all of his clothes in
the instance someone asks: Do those who claim to represent stakeholders
XYZ have any real legitimacy to do so? The truthful answer has to be
that, in some key constituencies, the stakeholders are represented by
self-appointed self-perpetuating elites that jealously guard their
privileges, incomes and power behind the claim of speaking for those
with whom they have in fact no connection at all. If the right question
is asked in public and backed up with facts, which is easily done, and
India for example has started to do, ICANN's projection of a multi
stakeholder model disintegrates into a heap of ashes. When this happens,
and it looks very likely it will, the multi stakeholder model in fact
has destroyed itself through neglecting to connect with the real
stakeholders: billions of internet end users.
The elite based multi stakeholderism representatives are very much aware
that it is others that are the main and legitimate representatives of
the end users in the IG ecosystem, but they cannot allow it to be,
because that would mean relinquishing some of their own assumed powers.
The key interest of elite based multi stakeholderism is it to keep the
constituencies apart from those that ought to be representing them. It
becomes in their interest to prevent real outreach and awareness
building with the end users at all costs.
As in every real democracy, the legitimacy of government is based on the
awareness and participation of the populous. Equally, legitimacy in IG
can only come from the awareness and participation of its populous. End
users have the most to lose because the development, survival and
well-being of individuals and whole societies depend on it. At the same
time, the reality is that the end users are the most disenfranchised
part of the whole process. End users find themselves represented by
people they do not know discussing topics without clear relevancy in a
language they do not understand. In this way, IG is manipulated,
exploited and even directed into policy making in both areas that is in
some cases quite clearly contrary to end user interest. Privacy and free
speech are vital aspects of Internet governance and should not be
devalued nor ignored in the Internet debate. However, the debate is out
of balance due to lack of meaningful end user engagement from a
multitude of experiences. Guarding human rights means to empower those
whose right we claim to represent, guarding human rights does not mean
to know it better, propagating the claim that processes are too
difficult and complicated, and to assume power based on a claimed
necessity for a ruling elite.
*What is the value proposal for NGO's to get involved in IG?
* 1. *IG without NGO involvement puts the stable, secure, accessible and
affordable use of the Internet for NGO's at risk!*
Security and Stability: NGO's need a stable, secure, accessible and
affordable Internet in order to support many aspects of their work, but
NGO's are not sufficiently aware and represented in the institutions and
organizations that are concerned with running the Internet.
2. *As more as NGOs participate in IG the more sustainable NGO's become!*
Sustainability: The Internet offers a multitude of opportunities for
NGO's to support their sustainability. IG is where these opportunities
are created and developed but again NGO's are not sufficiently aware and
represented and the lack of the use of the Internet for sustainability
results not only in financially weak NGO's and their activities but also
results in a weak overall economic development in developing and
emerging countries.
3. *Impact: NGO's are the key for a free and uncensored Internet!*
NGO's need the Internet to communicate and to make their voice heart. IG
is a vital tool to ensure a free uncensored and uncontrolled Internet
free from censorship and oppression. As much NGO's fail to participate
in IG, the easier it is to make the Internet a space for censorship and
oppression.
I hope this helps to explain my position and why I can simply not accept
your position because for me domain name policy is at the center of the
universe and legitimate IG in any form and shape can only be based on
broad end user engagement.
Klaus
|
