some further reports
sascha
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 12:33:33 +0100
From: Daniel Kaplan <dkaplan@terra-nova.fr>
To: isoc-eu@imag.fr, CA ISOC <isoc-ca@imag.fr>
Subject: Notes on the Geneva IFWP meeting
SOME NOTES ON THE GENEVA IFWP MEETING
Daniel Kaplan (dkaplan@terra-nova.fr)
The Geneva IFWP meeting took place on July 24-25. If follows the July 1-2
Reston meeting and will be followed by at least one other meeting,
Singapore, August 12-13.
The results are or will be posted at http://www.ifwp.org
1- Attendance
*************
Turnout was higher than in Reston, with some 200 attendees. There was a
strong European representation, as well as some persons from Asia, Latin
America and a few Africans.
Judging from the Reston minutes and reports I have read, I have the feeling
that the Geneva meeting was more international and that the technical and
ccTLD communities were better represented.
2- General feeling about the IFWP and the process
*************************************************
The meeting was rather professionally organised and lived up to the
expectations regarding its openness.
However, the discussion is very constrained:
- The September 30 deadline does not allow for long, in-depth discussions
on some issues.
- As one moderator put it, the terms of the White Paper, as well as the
EU's remarks on the process, are "not just indications".
- There are clearly a lot of behind-the-door negotiations happening at the
same time: Governments among themselves, some large stakeholders with the
US Government, etc. As a result, one often feels that in the meeting:
* Some players do not say everything they think or want
* Some (or the same) are interested in disrupting the discussions,
in order to reach the Sept.30 deadline with inconclusive results
by the IFWP, giving the US Government a freer hand to decide.
Is it, however, useless to participate? I don't think so:
- The meetings were (slightly) more productive and the participants agreed
on more things than I originally thought. There is, mostly, a real desire
to discuss issues and make progress.
- The sheer fact of bringing so many different people together is useful.
- Points of real consensus will have to be taken into consideration. In
other words: While I have no illusion that this is a totally bottom-up
procedure, it will at least make it more difficult for the final IANA2
structure to be totaly disconnected from what the IFWP consensus suggested
(that is, where consensus is reached).
Is it a model for Internet governance? I think not:
- The timeframe is short (even more so since it's happening in the summer)
and has been imposed on us.
- This process clearly privileges:
* Those who can speak perfect English
* Organisations which have the time and resources to prepare the
meetings, send several representatives, lobby the right persons,
etc. NSI had some 6-8 persons there, EuroISPA had at least 3...
3- Some comments on the results
*******************************
The comments will be made in regard to the "minimal set of principles" on
which ISOC-ECC chapters had informally agreed:
- IANA2 should be a not-for-profit entity: Consensus
- The fact that it will be based in the US should not imply that US laws
and jurisdictions be given any de jure or de facto pre-eminence over those
of other countries: The problem was acknowledged but not really discussed.
I feel a general uneasiness over this issue, mostly deriving from the (to
me) ideological unwillingness to have an international organisation act as
the depository of IANA's charter (just as ITU did for the gTLD-MoU). But
the French and the Australian government representatives reminded us that
if this was not ensured, it would result in a legitimacy problem for IANA2.
- Wide and open membership: Rough consensus
- Strong participation and/or representation of business and end-users,
both in the board and the councils: Weak consensus, ie, everybody seems
ready to pay lip-service to the idea, but many people are reluctant towards
user *representation* in IANA2's governing bodies.
- Strong regional and sectoral diversity in the board (including the
interim board) and the councils - although this diversity should not be
reached through fixed (or more-than-minimal) quota: Not really addressed
during the meeting.
- 3 Councils (names, addresses, other protocols): Consensus
- User representation mandatory in the names council, desirable in the
others: clearly refused by the working group on addresses, not addressed by
the others.
- On the "4th councils" (Industry and users) proposed by Jon Postel,
nothing came out clearly:
* Are we talking about a council or a "constituency" represented
in the board and the councils?
* Shouldn't users directly participate in the councils, in order
to become competent, and since the councils entirely cover
IANA2's fields of activities?
- Division of "powers"
* Board:
* organises IANA2, creates new councils... (constitutional power)
* reviews council decision, ratifies them or sends them back for
further discussion
* can raise topics and submit them to the councils
* hires and runs staff
* Councils:
* define policies in their respective fields
Rough consensus on this model, although the way workshop A's report
is written does not reflect it well. I chose not to make an issue
of it, since we will have time to think it over before Singapore.
4- Next steps
*************
- Singapore, August 12-13 (see http://www.ifwp.org): We need several
European representatives, and ISOC representatives. I will most probably go.
- There will be a Buenos Aires meeting in August, but it will be purely
regional (Latin American).
- It is likely that a 4the "wrap-up" conference will take place in North
America in September.
- I also advise those interested to read IANA's own proposed bylaws
(http://www.iana.org/bylaws.html). A good starting point for discussions,
although, IMHO, not all is acceptable.
Daniel
---------------------------------------------------
Daniel Kaplan Consultant
dkaplan@terra-nova.fr http://www.chez.com/dkaplan
5, rue de la Véga - 75012 Paris - France
T. +33 (0)1 5333 8881 F. +33 (0)1 5333 8882
---------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:33 PST