<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
<br>
On 7/10/2014 4:48 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8b66a7da4af44c5a81b95f3116186490@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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!".
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Dear Milton<br>
<br>
Thank you for explaining your position and I note Wolfgang's
approval. <br>
<br>
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 </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><small><font size="4"><small>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.</small></font></small></font></font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> Allow me to</font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">o explain this and to explain
why NGO's have a interest in IG and can and must be involved "on
deck and hands on". <br>
<small><font size="4"><small><br>
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.</small></font></small><br>
<small><br>
<font size="4"><small>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.</small></font><br>
<br>
<font size="4"><small>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.</small></font>
<br>
</small><br>
<b>What is the value
proposal for NGO's to get involved in IG?<br>
<br>
</b>
1. <b>IG without NGO
involvement puts the stable, secure, accessible and affordable
use of
the Internet for NGO's at risk!</b><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
2. <b>As more as NGOs
participate in IG the more sustainable NGO's become!</b><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
3. <b>Impact: NGO's
are the key for a free and uncensored Internet!</b><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Klaus</font>
</body>
</html>