[bc-gnso] My first post from ICANN Dakar

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

my early draft was pretty positive, but I turned more pessimistic after today's 
GAC – GNSO fiasco.

See post 
here<http://www.circleid.com/posts/a_month_in_africa_charts_the_promise_and_perils_of_internet_governance/>
 and below

A Month in Africa Charts the Promise and Perils of Internet 
Governance<http://www.circleid.com/posts/a_month_in_africa_charts_the_promise_and_perils_of_internet_governance/>

  *   Oct 23, 2011 6:18 PM PDT

By Steve DelBianco<http://www.circleid.com/members/3698/>
[Steve DelBianco]

[http://www.circleid.com/images/uploads/6081.gif]There may be no better 
illustration of how far we've come in Internet governance, than this: twice in 
the past 30 days, the global Internet community has gathered in sub-Saharan 
Africa to plot a path to bring the Internet to its next billion users. Just 
weeks after wrapping up the sixth annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in 
Kenya, Internet stakeholders from around the world traveled back to Africa for 
ICANN's 42nd meeting in Dakar, Senegal.

Fifteen years ago, nearly every important decision about the Internet was made 
in the United States. But in less than thirty days, the African continent will 
have hosted two of the most important global Internet policy events of the year.

In less than a decade, we have witnessed the emergence of something truly 
unprecedented. The model represented by ICANN and the IGF is the first to put 
the management of a critical global resource in the hands of the very people 
who use it.

The multi-stakeholder experiment begun in the late 1990s has scored enough 
successes to become a blueprint for other global initiatives. Successes like 
ICANN's scheduled expansion of top-level domains, growing crowds at each IGF 
global meeting, and the spontaneous appearance of regional and national IGFs.

As with any progressive change, this revolutionary governance model is not 
without its critics. Some of us naively hoped that as the multi-stakeholder 
model racked up successes and built its track record for ensuring the stability 
and functionality of the Internet, it might rise above reproach.

But as I say, that was a naive hope. Attacks on the multi-stakeholder model are 
coming fast and from multiple quarters.

Traditional power brokers in some governments seek to squelch an emerging model 
that asks them to participate as equals rather than rulers. Two proposals 
surfaced over those eventful past 30 days: one from Russia, China, Tajikistan 
and Uzbekistan; and another by India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA). These 
proposals would consolidate power for global Internet oversight in the hands of 
state actors, and by extension reduce the role of nongovernmental stakeholders 
in industry and civil society.

The IBSA proposal is particularly insidious. Without mentioning ICANN or the 
IGF directly, it calls for creating a new body within the United Nations to 
oversee Internet policy. What the proposal does not say, but what is clearly 
inferred, is that existing, multi-stakeholder bodies like the IGF and ICANN 
would either be marginalized and/or subjugated by this new UN entity.

If I can offer one observation to my fellow travelers in the multi-stakeholder 
community, it is this: we've become dangerously complacent about the 
inevitability of an Internet management model where we have a significant say 
about policies. In reality, our individual efforts and earnestness are not 
enough to defend us from those who would replace our model with the top-down 
tradition favored by governments. If we cannot deliver enforceable policies to 
maintain security and integrity of the Internet, we will be replaced.

At the IGF In Nairobi, I 
cited<http://www.circleid.com/posts/multi_stakeholder_debate_at_the_igf_lessons_from_a_safari>
 the multi-species cooperation at a watering hole on the African savannah as a 
lesson for our own multi-stakeholder community to follow. If there's one thing 
you notice about the apparent calm at the watering hole, it's how the animals 
are persistently watchful for external threats. Animals that fail to cooperate 
in collective vigilance and defense endanger themselves and at most a few other 
unlucky victims in the herd.

But when it comes to defending the multi-stakeholder model, a lack of attention 
and cooperation puts the whole species at permanent risk of extinction.