Re: [ga] ALAC Statement on WSIS Declaration of Principles and Plan of Actions
if this list has still a purpose, it is to address governance issues. Out
of any mission creep, governance is about managing in a concerted way the
three resources permiting e-networks interconnections with the purpose of
user end to end relations (names, address, protocols). Such notions as
"private sector", "government", "civil society" belong to the WSIS, not to
e-network interconnections architecture, development and operations.
They may be considered but as secondary to the main interest. They do not
belong to RFC 920/1591.
We want that end to end relations (many to many) to be established,
maintained and developped in a sure, secure, safe, stable, attracative,
innovating way. If in some areas, some countries, some technologies, some
occasions, there is a need for more or for less influence by one of these
societal building blocks, or by other ones such as army, police,
univesities etc. the governance should adapt and welcome their
representatives. The Embassadors lounge at ITU is where Embassadors decide
quick military operations to restore telephone liaisons in case of coup,
war, earthquake, etc. Green Berets are part of the world's telecoms. But
this is not the GA usual concern.
What is not acceptable is that the incapacity of a given technical,
societal or governmental group deprives the global community from its right
to surety, security, saftey, stability and innovation in term of
interconnection of its e-netorks, what is IMHO now the case.
The risks on the DNS, the centralization of the IPv6 numbering scheme, the
spam progression, the on-line crime and dangers and the inability of the
network participants to organize the normal societal multiletral and
community life (which usually contains the crime and reduces the dangers),
only show the fragility and probably the failure of the current governance
model. I welcome the WSIS declaration. But positive effects could only be
perceived in one or two decades, because ITU-T is made of the ICANN
stakeholders. So, before the WSIS ideas (we develop for more than two
decades) can really take over, UN will have to make an ITU revolution and
create the ITU-I (for Internet and Intelligence). Then that ITU-I will have
to stabilize (this is why the soonest we start...).
I say "current failure" because one hour ago I had 549 mails (I had read my
mails 11 hours before). 501 were junk mail. 53 had virus attachments. 2
lead me to rebout after finding and removing them manually at DOS level,
before I could read the remaining list. The reading required 32 minutes.
The waste and junk filters selected 481 mails. I reviewed them and had to
manually unjunk 3 mails, 2 being key important mails for my business. At
the same time Paull Hoffmann has started a private list, calling for it on
IETF lists, to capitalize on IETF Members' expertise (out of IETF IP
policy). That list has already different management problems based upon the
respect or not of RFCs (Paul does not want to use "[mail-ng " in the
subject, polluting participants mail agent lists for the sake of RFC 2919.
Such a list shows the real mess we are mudded into: scores of different
demands for a new mail system are gathered (most refering to our existing
absurd architecture). It will call for years and to change habits of
billions of people to go that way. They do not understand yet what we the
users might want - but they do not ask...
TITANIC - Top Internet Technology, Administration and Network Infromation
Another name for ICANN?
At 18:09 26/01/04, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Karl Auerbach ha scritto:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
This statement has just been released by the ALAC. Comments or questions
I'm sorry that I can't support the statement as it is not in accord with
my strongly held belief that the fundamental unit of sovreignty is not the
"private sector" but the individual human being.
To the extent that national governments are ordained and established by
the people those governments are worthy of far more respect as the voice
of those people than are arbitrarily defined groups of "stakeholders".
I do agree with this... In fact, our push for direct participation by
individual users into these matters does not deny the value of national
governments. Only governments have the legitimacy that comes from
representing all the citizens of their nations.
The point about keeping the road open for user participation is not about
representation - it is about advocacy. It is about preserving that
virtuous circle of freedom and innovation that is unique to the Internet,
and that derives by the users' ability to directly modify the content of
the network, and even the way the network works.
Also, you may note that "private sector" is, in fact, something completely
different from what ALAC is meant to represent, or from what, in WSIS and
in more general political language, is usually defined as "civil society".
Certainly the ALAC has not called for the Internet to be uniquely managed
by the private sector, and in fact, I think that it is mainly the private
sector's fault - not the governments' - if participation by users has
constantly been reduced and denied during the past history of ICANN. So,
while I think there is high value in a "not purely governmental" model of
administering a network, I also think that letting the businesses
determine the future of the network alone would be a total disaster.
(For more detail on my personal positions, you might see the post I sent
nearly one month ago to CircleID:
Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu.org
http://bertola.eu.org/ <-- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblog!