<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body >Thanks Michael, your response raises the very issue I hope Best Bits can resolve (for itself, at least). I have the impression that many, although striving for a more just world, accept geo-political realities and seek opportunities to promote policy as they seek to alter those constraints. Others are more focused on getting the processes/modalities right from the get go, doubting the potential for much incremental progress within current structures. Maybe Best Bits should, (not exclusively, but generally) pick one if these approaches. Then another coalition could focus on the other, and we can attempt to align their work when posssble?<br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: michael gurstein <gurstein@gmail.com> <br>Date: <br>To: 'Gene Kimmelman' <genekimmelman@gmail.com> <br>Cc: bestbits@lists.bestbits.net <br>Subject: RE: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? <br> <br><br>While agreeing in general with your statement below Gene I think this<br>discussion cannot be separated from a discussion of appropriate potential<br>modalities for implementation of such an agenda. One of the things that has<br>become very clear to me over the course of the last round of discussion is<br>that there seems to be a clear division between those who focus on outcomes<br>and those for whom a concern with the framework of the delivery of those<br>outcomes seems to be paramount.<br><br>To be specific, some in our grouping are for example focussed on Human<br>Rights and the Internet however that might be ensured; while others have<br>articulated such a deep suspicion of the possible role and influence of the<br>State (whether all States or just some is not clear) that they insist that<br>any initiative in support of Human Rights and the Internet must necessarily<br>be framed in a non-State supported framework i.e. where the only support for<br>Human Rights (as an example) can come through the dominance of<br>multistakeholder processes.<br><br>My feeling is that this division is irresolveable.<br><br>To add a brief observation, we know from Snowden that the subversion of<br>Multistakeholderism by the NSA has gone to the very heart of Intenet<br>development through its actions around standard setting in the IETF (and the<br>IETF and the other technical agencies have responded in the only manner<br>possible i.e. the Montevideo Declaration). It is thus hard to understand the<br>almost religious advocacy of MSism by some without a counterveiling<br>recognition of the need to provide an appropriate governance framework of<br>accountabllity and transparency for MSism. Associated with this is the<br>further need to anchor this MSism governance in some sort of framework of<br>international norms and statutes which can only come through multilateral<br>processes in which of course, there should necessarily be the broadest base<br>of particiaption by those most immediately impacted.<br><br>M<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net<br>[mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene Kimmelman<br>Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:43 AM<br>To: Avri Doria<br>Cc: bestbits@lists.bestbits.net Bits<br>Subject: Re: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot?<br><br>This back and forth conversation has been very interesting. The only thing<br>I have to add is that I believe we should try to keep all options open as<br>possible paths forward, and as Anja has been suggesting focus in Bali on<br>what our substantive demands are from policymakers and the corporate sector.<br>I don't believe it is useful to guess motives of various players, but<br>instead take advantage of possible opportunities and develop a more robust<br>CS agenda. The forum (or fora) for resolving our demands may be more clear<br>over time, as these various initiatives unfold.<br>On Oct 14, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:<br><br>> Hi,<br>> <br>> I think understanding this relies on your view of NTIA intentions.<br>> <br>> None of us can know those, but we all guess at them based on all sorts of<br>evidence, theories and assorted perspectives.<br>> <br>> If you tend to think that NTIA wants to hold or even increase its<br>influence, you assume one thing - that this had to be done against their<br>will or advice and that it is a slap in the face to US goals.<br>> <br>> If you assume that NTIA really wants to divest control in a sane and safe<br>manner to multistakeholder modeled governance, while seeing the Internet<br>remain open, you assume another.<br>> <br>> I assume the latter.<br>> <br>> The NTIA is not the NSA, like most governments, outside of dictatorships,<br>there is no agreement in the goals of the various departments. NSA's goals<br>are not NTIA's goals.<br>> <br>> I tend to believe in NTIA's commitment and support for the wider multi<br>stakeholder model of Internet governance. So yeah, them being somehow "in<br>the mix" seems about right to me.<br>> <br>> In other words, and to join in the prevailing marriage metaphor, I think<br>the US and ICANN have an open marriage.<br>> <br>> And speaking of metaphors, and of shooting people in the foot, I think we<br>should encourage the new directions and their initiators especially when<br>they are multi stakeholder in intent, taking into account that they are new<br>directions and still largely aspirational. I think this is the case for<br>Civil Society both inside of Brazil and inside of ICANN, as well as the<br>fragments of International Civil Society that gather in BestBits.<br>> <br>> avri<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> On 14 Oct 2013, at 01:37, William Drake wrote:<br>> <br>>> Hi <br>>> <br>>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:17 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé <joao.caribe@me.com><br>wrote:<br>>> <br>>>> I really can't understand how NTIA could be behind Fadi's meeting in<br>Brasilia.<br>>> <br>>> Not behind, but in the mix. <br>>> <br>>> Bill<br>> <br><br></body>