[WSIS CS-Plenary] [governance] Thinking about

[Enrique A. Chaparro]

Vittorio,
Please accept my apologies; I'm far away from home and using a
thread-unaware MUA, so this message won't show into the appropriate
thread. I can't do very much to correct the issue, then the
apologies.

> It depends. If the only way to have access to the text describing the
> standard is to pay hundreds of dollars|euros|whatever, 
[...snip...]
> 
> I think all Internet standards should be freely reproductible (which, as
> you know, does not mean copyright-free, but rather subject to a free
> license).
You've got a point here :) Sure, it's a minor issue and there is
a high probability that you could get a copy of the standard's
documents at no fee according to `fair use' doctrine. But an
issue anyways, and I share your idea that all Internet-related
standards documents must be freely reproductible.

[...snip...] 
> I and many other people that usually attend ICANN meetings spent a good
> part of the last year opposing a new service by VeriSign, the operator
[...snip...]
Yip. I'm aware of the whole SiteFinder affair.
 
> In your opinion, is regulation of such a service part of "Internet
> governance", or not?
As you know, the current hierarchical structure of the DNS system
has no good technical justification. Alternative services are not
only possible, but also desirable. Relying on Verisign's quasi-
monopoly led to that uncomfortable situation. Therefore, the
Sitefinder's affair become a governance issue, because of the lack
of circumvention possibilites. So, WGIG should discuss how to
reach a condition where non-standards-complying parties can be
circumvented without affecting newtorks' operability.

 
> 
> I don't think you can part some of these aspects from the others, and
> discuss them separately in different places. I have been spending years
> on this subject now, and I am more and more convinced that it's almost
> impossible. And by multiplying the forums you make it more difficult for
> the less organized and financed actors - that is, us - to coherently
> lobby for a global result.

On the other hand... are we ready and strong enough to fight
a battle where the winner takes all? If we concentrate all the
issues in one forum (assuming that it's feasible), and we
lose, we won't have second chances...

> > In that
> > sense, standards including patented technologies prevent the
> > required `smoothness', but copyright and trademark issues are
> > completely out of scope (and should be dealt with elsewhere).
> 
> Where? At WIPO? :-/

Why not? ;)
At WIPO and at every place where we can make our voices heard.
After WTO's Doha round, number of countries from the South have
become aware of the problems posed by TRIPS, and are starting to
ask for a deep reform of the whole patents and copyrights stuff.

 
> I see the WGIG as a huge chance to quietly start a new governance model
> on information society matters, starting from a tiny bit and then moving
> up towards places where we never had a say, such as WIPO or WTO. I think
> that, if the final composition of the WGIG is actually satisfactory and
> balanced, and if we are smart enough to exploit this opportunity, we
> have plenty to earn from this adventure.

I would like to share your optimism, but I see too many ``ifs''.
I strongly believe that the less governance the better. So, if
WTO wants to impose a new form of bloodsucking on the Internet,
the best reply from the governance bodies won't be `we do not
want to do this' (since WTO has enough power to change the
composition of the reluctant governance body), but `we cannot
do this; it's contrary to the laws of physics' (Excuse me for
the joke/oversimplification, but I guess you got the idea).

However, I'm quite sure that me and you have much more agreements
than disagreements, because even disagreeing in the methods we 
strive for the same goals. So let's continue this productive dialog.

Distinti saluti dal Sud lontano :)

Enrique

-- 
Venit summa dies et ineluctable tempus.
              --Virgilio, Eneida, 2:324