[WSIS CS-Plenary] WGIG

[Milton Mueller]

Wolfgang:
Thanks so much for the valuable insight into the discussions and issues
being considered by the WGIG. It takes a long time to write this stuff
out so we are indebted to your effort. 

Some quick reactions from me (speaking only for myself and not on
behalf of the US government, Cuba, my mother, God nor any minor deities
in the pantheon):

>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/21/2005 10:23:16
AM >>>
>As a result of the debate - from the issue papers to the 
>cluster papers - the members of the group started to realize, 
>that there is an overexaggeration of the role of ICANN and 
>the importance of the management of the core resources. 

This could be true or false, depending on what was meant. ICANN is
important as an attempt to develop a new, multistakeholder system of
global governance, as opposed to territorial governance. So, does this
realization mean that the national governments have accepted the need
for forms of global governance that transcend themselves?  It is also
important because the "core resources" can be (and are now) used as
levers to control other policy areas. So, does this realization mean
that there is consensus that the core resources should not be so used? I
hope so, but would be astounded if thinking had progressed that far that
fast.

>The "real issues" for the users and other stakeholders are on 
>the second and third layer - from Cybercrime and  Spam to 
>e-Commerce and IPR . 

As an aside, I continue to choke on the "layer" framework WGIG has
insisted on adopting, apparently in an attempt to sound technical but in
fact demonstrating that they do not understand actual standardized layer
models based on technical concepts. The decision to invent one that is
not coherently based on technical, legal, or any other known structural
principle, and which invites comparison with existing standardized layer
models, causes confusion...so I have replaced all reference to "layers"
in the discussion below.

>The [resource assignment and allocation functions] are more and more 
>seen as an "enabler", which should. not be "controlled" but 
>"protected" so that the Internet can continue to function 
>in a stable and secure manner and could remain robust. 

This sounds good. If it means what I think it does, it represents real
progress. But what does it mean  institutionally? Protected from what?
Protected by whom? 

>There is not so much "power" on [management of core resources] 
>(if it is compared with the problems [stemming from use of the
Internet]

Wrong, unfortunately. There is a lot of power there, especially to do
mischief. In order to avoid that, one must have institutionalized
"protections." 
 
>3. The main critical issues [in resource allocation and assignment] 
>is the authorization of the publication of root zone files (this has 
>first priority for the overwhelming majority within the group). 
>Proposed improvements circle around the key words "independence" 
>and "internaitonalization". 

Of course, this is inconsistent with everything you have said so far
about the unimportance of the resource assignment and allocation
functions. And there is a big difference between "independent" and
"internationalized," although I could understand if, in the existing
system of states, more internationalized institutional arrangements were
perceived as more "independent." 

>a.  the "stabilization" of the voluntary arrangements of the 
>root server operators (both the 13 of the athoritative root 
>and the 90+ of anycast); 

Would be nice to get a definition of "stabilization." As you know,
Wolfgang, "stability," like "security," is a frequently-abused term in
this policy domain.

>b. the issue of additonal allocation systems for IP addresses 
>(which is rather controversial in the group and in my reading 
>a majority of WGIG members reject the idea to have NIRs)

But it doesn't really matter, right, no real power there, huh.  ;-)

>c. the procedural clarification  for the introduction of new gTLDs

"Clarification" seems a weak term. "Definition?" Progress?

>d. the fomalization of arrangements between ICANN/IANA 
>and ccTLD Registries (taking into account the recently adopted 
>new GAC principles)

Any interest in the proposal to coordinate that function across
ITU/ICANN? Giving ccTLD managers a choice? 

>5. The critical issue of [Internet usage] is IPR and eCommerce. 
>It is unclear how far WGIG should go into the terrain of WIPO and 
>WTO and UNCITRAL, OECD, GBDe etc.). 

It is perfectly clear that the WGIG must address those areas in which
IPR protection conflicts or overlaps with other areas of Internet
governance, such as Whois (privacy), domain name trademark conflicts
(free expression), software patents (standardization), cybercrime, etc.
It is perfectly clear that the WGIG's definition of Internet governance
includes IPR insofar as it affects usage of the Internet or
Internet-distributed objects. 

Please, don't tell me you are accepting the IPR lobby's line that the
current regime of IPR protection must remain off-limits. The argument is
patently self-serving, and is designed to maintain the dominance of IPR
holders over this policy domain. 

Another bizarre aspect of your statement above is that OECD and GBDe do
not have any specific policy domain, they are basically research and
discussion organizations that can address ANY policy issue. So if WGIG
cannot touch their "territory" it cannot touch anything. 
 
>6. The critical issue of Layer 4 is capacity building, and here 
>both access and training/education. 

I cannot even remember what "Layer 4" is supposed to be, so I won't
replace it with something sensible. 
 
>7.1. establishment of a "Forum" (I call it the United Nations 
>Internet Governance Communication Group/UNIG.cog) which 
>could function as a discussion platform for policy development 
>and as a wachdog. Such a Forum would not have decision 
>making capacity (however it could recommend actions to other 
>institutions which have decision making capacity in their special 
>arena of responsibility). Such a forum should be  based on the 
>principle of "multistakeholderism" and organized as a network, 
>with a small "maultistakeholder core group" in the center of such 
>an "Internet Spider Net". The Group could have an annual meeting 
>under the umbrella of UN Secretary General. It could publish a 
>annual World Internet Report. 

How does this relate to the "Global Alliance" concept?
 
>7.2 establishment of an intergovernmental oversight body 
>for the root. This body would have a very limited mandate 
>for decision making, mainly to authorize modifications, deletions 
>or additions of political controversial zone files in the root. Such 
>an body (or an "Internet Security Council") could be work on an 
>ad hoc basis, that is it would meet only if controversial cases pop 
>up. It could be established by the GAC, or by the UN or by 
>interested governments.  

This strikes me as a dangerous approach, despite your call for a "very
limited mandate." The problem is that you need agreed principles, norms
and rules regarding the Internet that would constrain such a body.
Otherwise you have created a potentially political body that could
intervene at will. The idea that such a thing could be established by
the GAC, which has shown a propensity to intervene in the most minute
aspects of ICANN activities, is scary.
 
>7. 3 recommendations to improve the performance and 
>coordination of existing mechanisms

Sounds good, see my comments about WIPO above.