Meet the man who will save the internet
That's Masood Khan, Pakistan ambassador
By Kieren McCarthy in Tunis
Published Monday 14th November 2005 16:59 GMT
WSIS Tunis It’s been four years since the issue of how the internet
should be run, and by whom, became an official United Nations topic.
And yet despite hundreds of hours of talks, three preparatory meetings
and a world summit, there is only one thing that the world’s
governments can agree on: Masood Khan, Pakistan’s ambassador.
If a certain US senator and a certain EU commissioner are to be
believed, the internet is five days away from total collapse as
governments are finally forced into a corner and told to agree on a
framework for future Internet governance.
Both are wrong, but there is a very real risk that an enormous
political argument resulting in lifelong ill-will centred around the
internet could developed unchecked at the WSIS Summit.
The fact that it hasn’t already is effectively down to one man: Mr
Khan. He was chosen as chair of Sub-Committee A during the WSIS
process, and his remit includes all the most difficult and contentious
elements - not just internet governance but also how the world will
deal with issues such as spam and cybercrime.
Even though press attention has focussed on the undecided question of
control of the internet, at the start of the process there were widely
varying views on just about every aspect of the internet.
And yet through a mixture of careful, respectful and open dialogue,
occasional prodding and a dry sense of humour, Masood Khan has turned
what could easily have become a bar-room brawl into a gradual
formation of agreement.
Respect
Such is the level of respect and trust he has built up with all
parties that at the first restart of the sub-committee this Sunday,
every speaker without exception (and that includes countries as
diverse as China, Iran, Brazil, Ghana, Argentina, the US and UK) went
out of their way to stress how useful Mr Khan’s contribution as
chairman was.
In an extraordinary statement, the UK/EU then deferred its entire
contribution to the net governance debate to Mr Khan's stewardship.
"We will co-operate in any way you choose," the representative told Mr
Khan. This was the same UK/EU team that stunned the self-same room in
September by producing a radical blueprint for a new form of internet
control.
It may seem incredible that something of such importance rest on the
careful judgements made by one man, but as it became clear that
different governments were going to be unable to find a solution among
themselves, each in turn has ceded more control to Mr Khan.
Having chaired dozens of meetings as a careful and unthreatening
facilitator, Mr Khan saw his chance and went for it.
"I would encourage you all not to focus on general themes of internet
governance but instead go to the heart of the matter,” were his
opening words. And then he listed them. “The question of a future
mechanism, the question of oversight, and the paradigm of co-operation
amongst all stakeholders."
But government representatives only really feel comfortable when
talking in gross generalisations or disagreeing with other
delegations. Mr Khan summarised the positions and threw them back at
delegates. "We have been discussing this issue for four years and
people will want some sort of result. We won’t have any voting here,
we will work by consensus. If there is a split, it will not make the
final agreement. Where there is no agreement, the effort will have to
be to convince each other."
Criticism
He criticised those reiterating the same points and the same broad
principles, outlined the problems, pushed what he saw as the emerging
trends and opened it out to the floor. It’s a measure of his standing
that the room did not collapse under the eternal nay-saying that has
come to represent Net governance discussions.
When the countries failed to heed his instructions, he then told all
the main arguing delegates to sit in a room that afternoon and come up
with a list of points where they agreed. Four hours later they came
back to the official meetings with nothing. Khan suspended the meeting
and told them to go back and do it again.
Sitting in a boiling hot and cramped drafting room, the early
discussions suffered from the self-same problem of woolly jargon. But
when they finished at 10pm, three of ten points had finally hit upon
the hundred-pound gorillas in the room that everyone was ignoring.
This morning, with the list in front of delegates, Mr Khan again
pushed the agenda. The way such meetings work is that each delegation
raises their token, is added to the list of speakers and in turn
called upon to speak. It is a non-combative approach proven to help
governments gradually reach consensus but it is painfully slow. Mr
Khan upped the pace. In response to one delegation’s comments, he
ignored the pretence where the country being referred to is not named,
and asked that country outright to respond.
And he did it time and time again, until, eventually, the real points
at the heart of the internet governance started forming. "Would reform
of the GAC [the governmental advisory council, part of ICANN] answer
your points?" he asked Brazil. The Brazilian delegation demured. "You
did not answer the question," Mr Khan came back.
It wasn’t just the Brazilians. The US wasn’t allowed to hide either.
Would the US please say whether the word “oversight” is ever going to
be acceptable to them? Could the US answer the assertion that other
countries do not have adequate control over their own domain?
Tricks
It required some very fast and not entirely persuasive thinking on the
part of delegates to avoid making mistakes. Twice, governments tried
to stall the whole approach by asking what official standing the
document they were creating would have - an age-old diplomatic trick.
Mr Khan brushed it aside: "Just wait."
When a letter from ICANN chairman Vint Cerf was mentioned and argued
over, Mr Khan found a copy and read the whole thing out . When one
delegation suggested a useful compromise or pulled back the diplomatic
curtains to produce straightforward language, he signalled his
approval. If it got too heated, he made a joke and left the issue
alone for the time being.
In such a way, Ambassador Khan has expertly moved a room full of
governments that have been unable to get past the same topic for four
years onto a path that now even the most pessimistic can see drawing
ahead of them.
It is far from over but when the agreed text on how the internet
should be run and by whom appears in front of the World Summit and is
approved on Friday, it most certainly won’t be perfect but it will be
in no short measure thanks to remarkable abilities of the unassuming
ambassador from Pakistan.®
--
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." -- John Updike
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
