<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>A very good framing of the issues, Jeremy and of the central challenge going forward.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>My overall sense is that this (email/mailing list) medium is rather more amenable to critique than to construction .. for one thing because critique as with email is something one does on one`s own, while the development of constructive suggestions/direction is something that one does best with others…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>My thoughts going forward is that having to some degree settled on the challenge it is now up to small groups of likeminded individuals to `gather` to develop the suggestions that you are pointing to… Norbert has one such possible focus on the table with his ECTF; there are the (extended) ICANN etc. proponents`; there is the UN and then a UN+ option; there are the ``hands off the Internet`` proponents, who, now having made their case in extremis need to do some serious backfilling if their position is to not simply become one of ``no Internet governance except that which serves my/our immediate interests`` the conceptual difficulties of which will be handled by calling it anything other than Internet governance; there are probably others and even cross-overs and overlaps among the above.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Perhaps a convening of smaller (virtual) groups around various conceptual nodes with a target of reconvening at some later date--sooner rather than later, might be a way forward. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>M <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jeremy Malcolm<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, December 06, 2012 1:48 AM<br><b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 05/12/2012, at 11:29 AM, Andrea Glorioso <<a href="mailto:andrea@digitalpolicy.it">andrea@digitalpolicy.it</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p>John Curran wrote recently on this list:<o:p></o:p></p><p>" I harbor a concern that incremental change may be the only type of change that open multistakeholder deliberations can actually support, as the discussions of more revolutionary changes seem to inevitably jump to more authoritarian questions such as "who is charge", "who can approve this", etc. This is a topic worth thinking about in general about MS governance processes."<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Cross-posting something that I just sent to the Best Bits list, that is relevant to the above:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with which most are approaching WCIT will solidify into a general opposition to any global norm-setting outside of the Internet technical community's institutions, and that Internet policy development will thereby be confined to the national level. This is not helped by the US government's predisposition to avoid taking on international obligations (the Disabilities Treaty being the latest example, besides the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, the Cybercrime Convention, the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of course through multilateral trade agreements! I think we need to work on addressing that perception, and point out that:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>1. Multi-stakeholder Internet governance will be soft law, guidance rather than compulsion.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>2. Even the US is promulgating global Internet norms through fora that suit it (OECD, APEC, and the "free flow of information" provisions in the TPP).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>3. So we need to move this into multi-stakeholder global fora, at a higher level that does not bind anyone, and need not restrict national policy space.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>4. There are various non-technical Internet policy issues that have no appropriate global home (nor should the ITU become their home).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>5. For example, a potential core competency is connecting Internet governance with human rights, as a framework to guide the development of national and multilateral norms for IP enforcement.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>6. Let's propose an IGF-based multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperation mechanism that would be an acceptable way to deal with such issues.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is necessary to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers (look at the failure of IPv6 adoption). The existing loose network of Internet governance institutions, even if their "cooperation" is "enhanced", isn't structured enough to provide such guidance in a way that will satisfy the stakeholders (governmental and non-governmental) who are seeking more from the enhanced cooperation process.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time to debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in turn divides into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), or there is a UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF). So far, almost none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these. But the status quo is not going to hold. One way or another, Internet governance is going to evolve, and it will do so with us or without us. We've spoken loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So, what <i>do</i> we want?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black;background:white'>-- </span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black'>Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>Senior Policy Officer<br>Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black'><br>Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia<br>Tel: +60 3 7726 1599<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black'>Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black'> <a href="http://consint.info/RightsMission">http://consint.info/RightsMission</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black'>@Consumers_Int | <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/">www.consumersinternational.org</a> | <a href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#999999'>Read our <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality" target="_blank">email confidentiality notice</a>. Don't print this email unless necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>