[EURO-Discuss] alac review
JFC Morfin
jefsey at jefsey.com
Tue Jun 24 13:02:01 EDT 2008
At 13:39 24/06/2008, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
>Dominik,
>My point is as follows:
>
>1. WSIS and its sequels have used the "civil society" for cosmetic
>reasons, but are fundamentally government led. I personally have no
>problem with that. After all, we have elected these governments to
>represent us, at least in democratic countries. If we do not like the
>positions they defend, we have the choice of voting for others.
Dear all,
I will first react to this remark, however my point is about all the
other post as well. This also follows a private talk that I had with
Westlake on the matter.
There is confusion that is progressively clarifying over the WSIS
positions. This confusion results from the blocking of the WSIS
process by the JPA issue. The way ICANN is blocking that process is
through the confusion surrounding the ALAC that we are all helping.
Therefore, the point is not to say who is at fault: we all are.
The WISI stated that the Information Society that the world wants to
build is "people centered, à caractèe humain, centrada en la
persona", and that it should develop on an equal footing between the
regalian domain (govs, local admin, etc.), civil society, private
sector, international entities, and the technical/normative area. It
also agreed that the existing American structures were to continue to
manage the Internet Legacy and that the emergent issues and
management solutions were to be discussed through dynamic coalitions
(open WGs) leading to a management through (governments [Geneva] and
then stakeholders [Tunis]) enhanced cooperation.
The gap between that clear, simple, and widely accepted proposition
and the current Internet legacy community's vision is seen in three
main points: USA, nature of the @large, and ICANN's role.
1) USA.
This is the "pachyderm in the marigold" syndrome. Where is it going
to sit? Because, if it continues to sit in the middle, everyone will
switch the marigolds for water and clean water. I.e. in plain text
from a pseudo-internationalized no presentation layer Internet to a
Multilingualized Internet. This is what france at large put forth to be
voted on last year by ISO, wherein its position was only opposed by
the UK, IE, and US. This depends on the NTIA, which appears to be far
more open minded and pragmatic than the "over-southpacificated"
ICANN. What is at stake is the post-JPA. As Betrand de la Chapelle
(GAC VP for France) explained it: the outcome MUST be a plus for
everyone, including the USA.
2) nature of the @larges.
As the france at large incident has shown it, ALAC is NOT representative
of the whole @large community. As in every current user community,
@large are split into two main categories: users and lead users.
The additional problem is that the "lead user" concept was first
observed in the Internet and Free Software areas and, therefore, is
more mature than in any other industrial sector. "Lead users" are
(average) 1 to 2% of the user population, which adapts the products
that they buy to their individual needs. This is due to the technical
and educational possibilities that are available to them as well as
the progressive increase of anti-technolocracy and ecologic reactions
throuought the world.
This in a significant trend and in some industrial areas, such as the
Internet, this is _the_ innovation track. Industry follows the lead
users' quality in order to produce what the user will purchase in
quantity. The well observed Internet process is clear: everything has
been (1) developed by lead users [DNS, P2P, Voice over IP, etc.], (2)
checked and amalgamated by the Industry reps [IETF] and (3) put on
the market at low, for both sides, affordable prices.
The best example that we have of a functionning ALAC is the IETF.
They were the @large users of the mid-1980s, owning and controlling
their IMP and computers, having to make them work together. Now, they
specify for others, and they meet the same kind of
ethical/organizational difficulties that the ALAC does. This is the
same way that they carried important reviews on their role and nature
(RFC 3844, 3869, 3935) that every one of us should know rather well.
Jeannette Hofman co-authored the key RFC 3844.
The WSIS understanding of the five Internet poles makes that the
ALAC's scope is much wider than the IETF's, including new technolgies
like politics, citizenship and human sciences, business,
international affairs, and cultural/lingual diversity. If Govs still
gain the main focus it is because they have far better training than
others to assume a leading role - and because they are sovereign
entities (as each of us are). However, my personal experience as an
@large for 30 years has shown me that individuals can do the same. To
think otherwise would be to believe that the people in Govs are more
intelligent, more educated, more related, etc. than we are. If that
was the case, I think we would have known this for some time now :-)
Two last points that Westlake and ICANN seem to miss :
- ALAC lead users are not voluntaries. They are here to protect the
interests of their property (whole internet which supports their own system).
- as such they carry a policy; which usually seaking a peaceful
equilbered stability. But they are to be convinced by ICANN, the
sameway as they make their own opinions and decisions at the FGI?
3) ICANN's role is the main issue.
The WSIS/IGF is calling for enhanced cooperation to replace ICANN.
ICANN is a candidate to be its own successor.
(a) it attempts to play the status quo in many areas where it feels
it is rooted enough.
(b) it attempts to indebt large and long-term enough interests so
that these interests will demand its continuation after Aug 31, 2009.
The gTLDs campaign and IDNccTLD selective Fast Track are good examples.
(c) it attempts to consolidate its current structure, including the
ALAC. This is where Westlake fits in.
What the French Minister Besson said yesterday after the OECD meeting
and on behalf of Europe is: this is not enough. And what has been
explained and understood by Peter Dungate Trush is that ICANN just
wanted to consolidate its existing achitecture and is now interested
in clearly understanding which architectural changes should be considered.
france at large position over the Westlake report
This report is unacceptable. This is not due to the Westlake people
but rather to ICANN. They made them work on an inappropriate mission.
There is no need for wasting our time and Westlake's time in
discussing its conclusions as long as it does not get real. This is
why I left the meeting room yesterday and talked with Westlake.
(1) Westlake must be told that this is a clean slate situation and
must be told as to who the real world Internet @larges are, not only
the ICANN accredited @larges. This means not only france at large, but
all the individuals and corporations that co-develop the Internet and
influence and/or compete with ICANN decisions, credibility, and
interests. People who consider themselves as the owners of their own
global system and the co-owners of the Internet. I would reasonably
evaluate them as at least 20 million (2% of all users) that have the
necessary competences in their specific or in many areas.
(2) Then, Westlake must contribute in first discovering what the
ICANN products are for the market that they say they address (cf.
Twomey, Friday(?) last), and then how they address the needs of the
users and be appropriated by lead users; in order to root itself in
their digital neighborhood.
Then, and only then, can Westlake's report be worth reading. From
what we can grasp today, it could be interesting once the very basis
is totally open to them. I will only advise them to communicate with
the other Internet poles in order to see how their propositions could
be received by ALAC's counterparts (GAC, BC, IETF, and WSIS dynamic coalitions.
jfc
PS. I expect Westlake to lurke on this list?
More information about the EURO-Discuss
mailing list