#ig14

6/2/2024

Goals and Work Updates: 

J: Magic update

A: Elves, Human Backburner

L: None

Close with Goals: 

A: Elves

L: Recover from life events! Fungus?

J: Flesh out bio-tie ins

5/19/2024

Goals and Work Updates

L: NBF update, conclusion

J: First Section Rewrite

A: Humans Update, Motion to move Ansible to Gen.Tech

Time Check: Does this meeting time still work?

Close with Goals

A: Detail out humans, hopefully finish them

L: None

J: Processes, more into magic instead of science side

5/12/2024

Goals and Work Updates

L: Nature-Bound Faye

J: Magic update, Alchemical Processes

A: Human Culture, 

NBF Review

Rename “Bestiary” to “Xenofauna Archive”

Flip limbs and internal composition on templates

L: “That’s fucked but… that’s kinda cool”

Alchemical Processes

Close with Goals

A: Finish humans!

J: Flesh out / Diagetic understanding of base elements

L: Fae culture, xenofauna: shrooms

Homework

Platform

Release expectations

content

5/5/2024

Big potion games and Rusty’s Retirement Talk

Check on Last Work

Check on Goals

A - long walkthrough of humans progress 

L - update on fairy and nature-bound family

Distance and weight standards set

Arkanum

Magrum

Elvenoid, not Humanoid - Elves are the standard in the galaxy

Close with Goals

J - 1 more header

L - Another crack at fae-nature-bound

A - Finish humans and get a start at elves

4/28/2024

Current progress on “Magic” reviewed - APPROVED by A and L

Set up Minutes Document

Space Feet - Distance units discussed

Alien Template Riff Review

Alien Template converted to Monster Template

J joins

Incorporating biological aspects of magic into the magic document

Point of origin

Variance

Influence of crossbreeding

Inherent Spells

Affinities

Weaknesses

Sources

Potion Craft discussion

Close out with goals:

A: Convert some aliens with templates

L: Design a monster or alien with template

Simone Bredariol for Ingram Fall Winter 2014

(This is a version of a contribution to NetMundial 2014.  Changes made since submission indicated below)

Overview

Any plan to transfer Stewardship of IANA over to another entity should be preceded by extensive consultations with all stakeholders.  This is one plan, among others, that should be discussed over the course of the May 2014 - May 2015 so that a consensus solution can be found prior to September 2015 when the current contract expires.  It needs to be understood that any proposal for transition from the current IANA arrangements or US Government oversight would require a transition plan that was well formed, endorsed by stakeholders and the key customers of IANA services in order to guarantee the security and stability of the Internet.

Principles of the Roadmap

In defining a roadmap for IANA several principles should hold:

Stability and security of the Internet should be the highest priority at all times.

Completing the plan to bring IANA functions under ICANN as originally documented in the White Paper is an advisable and overdue milestone, but not the ultimate goal of this proposal.

Oversight of IANA and Root Zone Managements should be a multistakeholder function

No single stakeholder group should have sole oversight of IANA or Root Zone Management

No single country should have a preeminent role in overseeing IANA

As IANA’s functions are limited to data maintenance, database provision and coordination -- whose methods are determined in IETF, ICANN and the RIRs -- IANA should not have a policy role. Each of these organization must retain the oversight of its own data.

Oversight of IANA will focus on performance, adherence to Service Level agreements and MOUs with the organizations with which it has signed MOUs (referred to as Partners elsewhere in this document).  These MOUs should be modeled on the current MOU between ICANN and the IETF, as described in RFC2860, RFC6220 and in subsequent updates to the MOU, with similar reporting requirements and appropriate service level agreements.

Reporting requirements and service level agreements between IANA and its partners should be negotiated and executed in a public and transparent way; ensuring that all affected stakeholders are involved in the development of those requirements.

Scope of the IANA Operations Function

Under this proposal, IANA’s Operations Scope would be limited to four major activities:

global apex of Internet numbering resources (for example IPv4, IPv6 addresses, AS numbers, etc.);

global apex of Internet DNS-based naming resources (including the root zone of the public, global DNS, management of the .arpa and .int top-level namespaces, and IDN practices)

management of Internet protocol parameters as required from the IETF

maintenance of the Internet’s time zone database

The intent of this proposal is insure that the scope of the current IANA Operations Function is not changed or added to during the transition to Stewardship by an independent IANA Stewardship Group (ISG). Once the IANA was a fully independent organization it is intended that the functions listed above would be added to, changed or even moved to other organizations only through negotiation and consensus agreement between the IANA Stewardship Group and those organizations that are “Partners” of IANA (see below).

Plan

In order to complete the White Paper Plan the US Government should first relinquish its oversight role to a new IANA Stewardship Group while the IANA Operational Activity temporarily remains executed by ICANN.  The IANA Stewardship Group would be an independent group (see below) that provides strategic and planning direction for IANA’s Operational Activity.  This intermediate step would see the IANA Stewardship Group operate in much the same way as the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) operates under the Internet Society (ISOC) umbrella: an independent group where ICANN would be responsible for IANA Operational Activities by where the IANA Stewardship Group would be responsible for the strategic direction of IANA.

This would be done as an intermediate step before IANA is established as an independent entity.   ICANN’s limited, temporary stewardship of ICANN should be defined in MOUs between ICANN and the various Internet organizations that rely on IANA, such as IETF, and the RIRs (the partners) for a maximum of 3 years.

Immediately upon the transferring IANA to ICANN stewardship, an IANA Stewardship Group would be responsible for:

Oversight of IANA function and Root Zone Management under the ICANN corporate umbrella according to the MOUs.

Consultation with stakeholders on the structure and processes, including oversight, of a free standing IANA

Within 3 years of the date of the transfer, establishing an independent IANA with Root Zone Management responsibilities.

IANA Stewardship Group

The IANA Stewardship Group is intended to reflect broad stakeholder input into the operations and strategic direction of the IANA Operational Activity during the interim period.  The membership must reflect a globally diverse balance of the key stakeholders who use the work products of IANA.  The IANA Stewardship Group should be organized composed of:

- 1 Representative from each of ICANN supporting organizations

Addressing Supporting Organization (ASO)

Country Code Name supporting Organization (CCNSO)

Generic Name supporting organization (GNSO)

- 1 Representative from each of the ICANN advisory committees

At-Large (users) Advisory Committee (ALAC)

Government Advisory committee (GAC)

DNS Root Server Advisory Committee (RSSAC)

Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)

- 1 Representative from each of the Regional Internet Registries

AFRINIC

APNIC

ARIN

lacnic

RIPE

- 1 Representative from each of the following ISOC entities

Internet Society Chapters Organization Advisory Council

- 1 representative from the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)

- 1 representative from the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) for IETF

- 1 representative from the Root Zone Operators (on a rotating basis among the root Zone Operators)

- 1 representative from the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) in each of the following stakeholder groups:

Academia

Civil society

Private Sector

Government

Intergovernmental Organization

Eventual structure of independent IANA

The framework advised in this recommendation is that of an International Non Governmental Organization which has host country agreements with several countries that guarantee that IANA would be governed by its MOUs.  It is recommended that the IANA data and functions be distributed in several countries that provide the greatest protections for an open, accessible and trusted Internet. The oversight mechanism for the independent IANA must be defined by the IANA Stewardship Group prior to the signing of MOUs with IANA Partners (see Milestones, below).  In addition to resolution of conflicts by internal processes there should be an appeals mechanism that relies on a trusted International Arbitration entity. The initial internal conflict resolution processes and appeals mechanism must be in place prior to the signing of MOUs with IANA Partners (see Milestones, below).  The structure and framework for IANA should, to the full extent possible, be transparent and accountable to those with whom it has signed MOUs.  

Milestones:

MOUs USG turns control of IANA over to ICANN.  September 2015

Consultation on form of the free standing IANA 2016 -2017

Negotiation of host country agreement 2017 -2018

MOUs signed and IANA established as free standing in 2018.

Funding

Funding levels to be established as part of the MOU preparation with agreement prior to the signing of MOUs with IANA Partners (see Milestones, below).  Questions of whether IANA should charge for any of its services to be resolved at a later time and to be governed by the MOUs with its partners.

Changes made:

- Addition of Root Zone Management oversight to ISG

(The following is a version of a submission made to NetMundial 2014)

One of the first principles of Internet governance has been the democratic principle as it contains within its aspirations the fulfillment of many other human rights’ based principles.  There are few who would argue against the principle that Internet governance ought to be democratic.  There is disagreement, however, on whether the multistakeholder model, currently being used, represents a way forward for democracy and whether it fulfills the democratic principle that is central to our discussions.

One of the most common complaints against the Multistakeholder approach is the it by-passes the democratically elected representatives of the people.  Often when one is sitting with governments, one hears a statement of the form:

“ We do not know what Multistakeholder means, but we all know what Democracy means”

Among those who consider themselves democratic, each with its own definition of democracy, we find:

Autocracy 1.0 sometimes known as People’s Democracies

Autocracy 2.0 where one is offered the ability to elect the incumbent

Constitutional monarchies

Parliamentary republics

Presidential mulch-partite republics

Simple majority rule democracies

Democracy that incorporates minority rights in the voting

Democracy that impedes minority rights in the voting

Democracy that balances national religious membership

Plebiscite based direct democracy

Since the time of Aristotle we have been arguing about Democracy and invoking its name for all sorts of systems where the people, or at least some people, have some say in their governance regime.  Even Athens was democratic, at least for males born in Athens.  

And even when we look at the most basic form of multilateral expressions of democracy, we find that the ‘one person  one vote’ is more an ideal than a reality, where nations with a population of tens of thousands have the same vote as those with a population of over a billion.  Yet we view the UN as representing a form of democracy, we have seen that in many cases, this still does not serve the multivariate interests of the people - it is focused on the notion of states as entities and it is out of scope to serve the needs of people within a country.  And it has proven itself as inadequate for handling the needs of the Internet, whether it was the creation of the protocols and other technology that created the Internet or the issues and policy questions that resulted from the behaviors on the Internet.  the problems are too complex for any one grouping, including a multi-lateral grouping to handle.

The question comes down to what we mean by democracy on the Internet?  

When we speak of  democracy, especially with regard to the Internet, we need to develop ever improved forms of participatory democracy.  Participatory democracy is an advance on democracy that has seen few examples in the world to date outside of the Internet, though there some.  It is a form of democracy that is enabled by the Internet and one that may only have been possible in the small town meeting hall before the current age.  The possible scope of participatory democracy is one that balances the best of representational democracy with the ideal of direct democracy.

The variety of multistakeholder models are forms of participatory democracy.  Multistakeholder models build on, and includes, the State based multilateral system in an attempt to move towards more participation by the people and the organizations they form.  Some states may do a decent job of representing the citizen residing within their geographically bounded territory for a particular set of interests related to that place and time.  The states, however, do little for a wider set of rights-based interests people may have, do nothing (or worse) for the non-citizens under their control (especially those who are undocumented), and have little to say about inter-jurisdictional disputes in the absence of treaty.  Beyond that the state frequently infringes upon the rights of citizens, residents and non-resident alike; rights they have agreed to by covenant.  The other human rights based interests require greater participation than can be achieved by governments alone.  It is often Non Governmental Organizations that serve these rights and cross-border interests without discrimination based on geography, nationality or other circumstance.

We all have seen, though, many ways in which the multistakeholder models that are being deployed are still underdeveloped and even flawed at times.  there is still a lot to be complained about and improved upon.   But to misquote Winston Churchill’s quote on democracy:

“Multistakeholderism is the worst form of governance, except all the others that have been tried.”  (Drake 2011)

The WGIG Background Report (Page 239 Paragraph 58) explained:

“Democracy is defined in different ways in a multilateral context and by different stakeholders according to their particular perspectives. Governments generally hold to a view based on national sovereignty with equal say for all countries and decisions reached through consensus. Each citizen is held to be represented and to be able to influence decisions through national consultation and decision-making mechanisms. Some are of the view that most governments include members of their civil society in their delegations to the extent practical and in any case they take into account the interests of their civil societies when establishing agreements at multilateral bodies. Civil society advocates on the other hand would argue that the term goes beyond this, requiring direct full participation in decision making by many nongovernmental groups from the private sector and civil society. Furthermore, they have expressed the view that governments are not actively or consistently consulting with other sectors of society prior to establishing agreements within multilateral bodies.”

And when the context is the Internet, this extends to the technologists who built and preserve the system as well as the Internet Service Providers and other industries that deploy the technology.   Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and epistemic (or expert) communities provide various kinds of information that are relevant to the pursuit of collective goals.

Even when it comes to governmental representation, governance of the Internet requires more stakeholder support than just the diplomatic and bureaucratic representatives of nation states that make up the multilateral system.  The process needs the representation of the variety of governments stakeholders, including regulators, privacy protection, law enforcement, parliamentarians and others.

For humanity’s interests to be truly represented, we need a multistakeholder framework for participatory democracy that includes all people and organizations who have a stake in the subject at hand (in this case the Internet) who care to participate; each participating with their own special perspectives and roles; with roles and responsibilities that vary depending on the task at hand but which, in the larger scope are equal, just as Palau is equal to China in the UN.

Whether it is NGOs that represent the needs and interests of the people they serve, the technical community in their role as the creators and maintainers of the technology, or the academics who attempt to understand the dynamics of the social systems within which we live in this highly interconnected world, all of the stakeholder groups have a place at the table where they can discuss the issues and decide on solutions for Internet governance on an equal footing.  Anything else leaves some interests without representation, and thus leaves the populations who feel and express these interests unrepresented, at least in that respect.