Karl's later reply to my email. Some good points about value of technologists. Thanks, Adam >Delivered-To: [log in to unmask] >Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 03:19:23 -0700 (PDT) >Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <[log in to unmask]> >To: Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]> >cc: Milton Mueller <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Names for the Working Group on InternetGovernance >From: Karl Auerbach <[log in to unmask]> >X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.0.3 (Seattle Slew) > > >On Sat, 21 Aug 2004, Adam Peake wrote: > >(By-the-way, I didn't find anything you wrote to be offensive or >insulting. Rather I read it as a positive and thoughtful discussion >of the nature of people needed to solve a particular set of problems >with me as an example.) > >>He's not very diplomatic: well he's not! > >And you are quite correct. ;-) > >I believe that issues should be raised clearly and without obscuring >euphimisms. I believe that social surgery should be done using >bright lights with few shadows. > >That said, you are right that my technique does not work well in >certain environments that thrive on, and benefit from, periods of >indirect speech. I also find that such soft techniques do not work >well in electronic communications where the feedback loop of >face-to-face contact does not mitigate the misunderstandings and >unintended affronts that happen in all dialogs. > >However, when it comes to the rights of people to govern themselves >I feel that we have gone far, too far, down a road in which >euphimism has become concession. Few today are willing to draw a >firm line. I have watched and cringed as again and again "public >interest" groups have given silent assent to ICANN when it committed >mayhem on the principle of public participation. > >>And to the best of my knowledge he has no experience working in a >>UN type environment, and no experience in ICT for development, no >>background in WSIS. > >I'm not running for whatever role I'm being discussed for so much of >this is moot. > >However, if I have no synoptic experience neither do many of the >people I met at the meetings at the ITU and UN. And, to look at it >the other way round, from my perspective as a technologist I find >that nearly all of those who participate, outside of a handful of >IETF/IAB/ISOC folks, are woefully ignorant of the technology that >underlays all of these discussions. > >The point is that *everyone* is inexperienced in one aspect or >another - the crucial skill is tolerance for those who have not yet >learned (but not tolerance for those who refuse to learn) and a >willingness to put differences aside for a moment and help people to >fully comprehend issues. > >>Karl is very interesting when talking about ICANN. I agree he was >>marginalized on the board, but I also remember him doing little to >>stop that happening. > >Don't forget that I had to bring legal action - which took 18 months >- against ICANN to grant to me what is an "absolute right" under >law. So I look at the situation rather the other way round - that >ICANN was being illegally obstinate and that it was ICANN that >marginalized itself and acted beyond the limits of legal behaviour. > >To put it another way - who is going to obligate whatever structures >of internet governence may arise to operate according to their >charters? It is not enough to simply define bodies and powers and >procedures; somebody or something must be empowered to coerce >adherence to charters. > >If the act of forcing ICANN, or any other body, to obey the law is >considered an act that marginalizes the actor then I say more power >to those who become thus marginalized! > >>He's strikes me as a bit of a maverick. We need smart mavericks, >>but not on WGIG which will be a multi-stakeholder group > >There is no doubt that I do hear a different drummer than do most >people. But don't we want new ideas and "out of the box" thinking? >I would suggest that one of the problems with internet governance >has been too much stale thinking by those who follow the herd. > >You used the phrase "multi-stakeholder". That always catches my attention. > >I do not accept the term "stakeholder" as a constructive concept. >To my mind it is a euphemism that says "someone gets to be king and >designate what groups get power and what groups are to be >disenfranchised". To my mind that kind of parcelling of authority >to groups rather than people is not merely anti-democratic but also >creates many opportunities for manipulation and gerrymandering. > >To my mind there is but one kind of "stakeholder": the living, >breathing human being. Corporations, organizations, "NGOs", and >other such entities are merely aggregations of people and deserve no >recoginition other than derived from the people who wish that entity >to speak on their behalf on some matter or another. > >I accept the fact that sovereign nations have the ability to speak >on behalf of their citizens because the concept of national >sovereignty has moved well past what it was in the 17th century and >rests in many, perhaps most, cases on at least the expression and >theor, if not the reality, of popular sovreignty as it arose in the >18th and 19th centuries. > >>And I really don't think he communicated well from the board. > >"From the board" or "to the board"? Certainly I spoke more "from >the board" to the community of net users than anyone then or since. > >As for speaking "to the board": It is hard to communicate to a body >of people who have no ears. It is amazing how often I tried to >communicate with the board - it is unfortunate that ICANN has not >published the email exchanges between its board members - and found >that they were simply unwilling, or afraid, to listen. Did you ever >notice how annoyed ICANN's Chairman became when I took the time at >board meetings to actually try to explore issues? > >But you are right, ICANN has made itself irrevent to the internet >except with regard the economic and business practice regulation of >one technology (the DNS) as that technology is slowly replaced in >the minds of users by increasingly effective directories and search >services. > >The real issue is the creation of principles and processes at the >national and international levels while recognizing that the >conception of what constitutes a state and its authority is >undergoing the greatest change since the early 1800's. > >I hope that in our race to be pleasant and euphemistic that we don't >create a world in which the role of a person on the internet is an >attribute of the opinions of the groups to which that person is >affilliated rather than the opinions, beliefs, needs, and desires of >the person himself/herself. > >I believe that when facing the issues that confront us that clearly >articulated positions and creation of firm frameworks of principle >are required. I do not believe that these will arise quickly, if >they are to arise at all, from a process that rejects all >confrontational interactions and feeds solely on euphimisms. > > --karl--