<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div apple-content-edited="true">Hi<br><br>On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG">avri@ACM.ORG</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">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 evidence, theories and assorted perspectives.<br></blockquote><br>And conversations with the folks involved.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>If you tend to think that NTIA wants to hold or even increase its influence, you assume one thing - that this had to be done against their 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 manner to multistakeholder modeled governance, while seeing the Internet remain open, you assume another.<br><br>I assume the latter.<br></blockquote><br>I don't think it's just an assumption. But there are of course internal debates and countervailing pressures, so this has to be done very carefully and in a somewhat evolutionary manner, recognizing the substantial domestic political constraints. It's not like the administration could be relishing the prospect of a campaign on Fox News etc. with the Tea Party screaming "Obama hands over the Internet", much less all the real power centers that will be nervous about a headlong dive into the unknown. So there's a lot that would have to be done to keep this on course, and alas NTIA staff cannot even legally respond to their email at the moment, much less engage in global discussion.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>The NTIA is not the NSA, like most governments, outside of dictatorships, there is no agreement in the goals of the various departments. NSA's goals are not NTIA's goals.<br></blockquote><br>Fair to say, and worth remembering when making sweeping statements about this or any other government (see Wolfgang's recent note on endemic intra-ministerial fragmentation).<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>I tend to believe in NTIA's commitment and support for the wider multi stakeholder model of Internet governance. So yeah, them being somehow "in the mix" seems about right to me.<br><br>In other words, and to join in the prevailing marriage metaphor, I think the US and ICANN have an open marriage.<br></blockquote><br>And one side seems increasingly inclined to understand the TOR a bit flexibly.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>And speaking of metaphors, and of shooting people in the foot, I think we should encourage the new directions and their initiators especially when they are multi stakeholder in intent, taking into account that they are new directions and still largely aspirational. I think this is the case for Civil Society both inside of Brazil and inside of ICANN, as well as the fragments of International Civil Society that gather in BestBits.<br></blockquote><br>Yes.<br><br>Best,<br><br>Bill<br><blockquote type="cite"><br><br><br><br>On 14 Oct 2013, at 01:37, William Drake wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Hi <br><br>On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:17 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé <<a href="mailto:joao.caribe@me.com">joao.caribe@me.com</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">I really can't understand how NTIA could be behind Fadi's meeting in Brasilia.<br></blockquote><br>Not behind, but in the mix. <br><br>Bill<br></blockquote><br></blockquote>
</div>
<br></body></html>