Ah, conference manoeuvring. It's as old as politics. Sounds like the Spanish did everyone a favour by asking whether "the feeling of the room" was a vote or not, because gosh it'd be easy to "accidentally" mark it down as a vote in the minutes.
Other tactics I recognised from my student politics days:
* Proposing a batshit crazy option, then offering a "compromise". See also: anchoring tactics.
* Having various scapegoats who can be sacrificed as the bad guy if and when something comes to light.
* Springing documents at the last minute, so there's no time for detailed review. Good old false-sense-of-urgency.
* Wearing attendees down by meeting into the wee hours of morning.
* Whack-a-mole motions: keep bringing up the same proposal in different language. One of them might eventually slip through, especially if you "accidentally" lock out those opposed or send them to the wrong address.
Speaking tactically, it seems from this account that the USA didn't work the conference the way it ought to have. I will now go on to be a condescending ass (as befits someone with student politics experience).
As soon as it was clear what was afoot (a power-grab), you can safely assume that your counterparties are not acting in good faith and you begin to deliberately disrupt proceedings.
For example: endless points of order. Bring them up on the slightest technicality. Get an ally to do it.
Constant procedural motions. Move that the subject be tabled. Move foreshadowing. Move that the speaker be no longer heard. Move that the chairman be replaced. Move that the meeting be adjourned. Move that the meeting be relocated. Move everything in the book that can be moved.
Yes, well. I was in student politics, so I have no such experience :)
Constructive conversations generally move much faster. You still need some formality to ensure people come out of a decision process with something that can be verified later. And generally the process of doing that helps clarify what, in fact, are the points of difference.
Nice to see another (former) student politican on HN, I thought I was the only one.
I completely agree with you here, this was typical conference behaviour.
Nonetheless, lets not kid ourselves that the US had the interests of the world at heart here. Essentially the internet is controlled by the states through ICANN and the registries. I don't have that much of a problem with this, but it would be foolish to think that their disagreements were not based in realpolitick rather than idealism.
> The US government never expressly condoned WCITLeaks’s activities, but it never expressly condemned them, either.
I suspect this will be a common theme by the US government for the next 20 years or so. During the Wikileaks scandals, the US government took an absolutist position in regards to leaks. On other hand, Wikileaks showed how political useful leaks can be, to force peoples hands and to push from a political high-ground. This I think is forcing them to silently support leaks site when its beneficent, but never, ever, publicly announce it or admit any such support.
Thus I believe this wikileaks sounding site, pronounced "wicketleaks" was allowed to join the US delegation, but was not expressly condoned or condemned.
There's a lot here that reminds me of why I'm suspicious of the UN. At this conference it seems that many countries treated concepts like "democracy", "human rights" and "transparency", as a veneer, not as concepts that they actually believed in but as weapons that they could cynically manipulate in order to get what they wanted. The following countries spoke in favor of a "human rights" proposal that would provide for a national right to access the Internet: Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Togo, China, Sudan, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and Burundi.
Iran wants to create its own Halal Internet. China and Saudi Arabia are also notorious for their censorship regimes. Isn't there something wrong with restricting your citizen's access to the Internet and then turning around and demanding that others give you the right to access Internet resources?
Other tactics I recognised from my student politics days:
* Proposing a batshit crazy option, then offering a "compromise". See also: anchoring tactics.
* Having various scapegoats who can be sacrificed as the bad guy if and when something comes to light.
* Springing documents at the last minute, so there's no time for detailed review. Good old false-sense-of-urgency.
* Wearing attendees down by meeting into the wee hours of morning.
* Whack-a-mole motions: keep bringing up the same proposal in different language. One of them might eventually slip through, especially if you "accidentally" lock out those opposed or send them to the wrong address.
Speaking tactically, it seems from this account that the USA didn't work the conference the way it ought to have. I will now go on to be a condescending ass (as befits someone with student politics experience).
As soon as it was clear what was afoot (a power-grab), you can safely assume that your counterparties are not acting in good faith and you begin to deliberately disrupt proceedings.
For example: endless points of order. Bring them up on the slightest technicality. Get an ally to do it.
Constant procedural motions. Move that the subject be tabled. Move foreshadowing. Move that the speaker be no longer heard. Move that the chairman be replaced. Move that the meeting be adjourned. Move that the meeting be relocated. Move everything in the book that can be moved.