<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 05 November 2013 07:27 PM,
      Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div>But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India,</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Just for factual correction.... CIRP was never repudiated by India.
    the fact that they showed openness to engage with critical comments
    cannot be held against them. If they did engage, one is saying they
    have repudiated their earlier stand, if they hadnt engaged one would
    call them closed and inflexible... Damned if you do, damned if you
    dont. <br>
    <br>
    Essentially the same proposal is put forward by India in its WGEC
    response - without the name though, and with an improvement of
    separating the treatment of the 'oversight' issue which India now
    wants to be seen separately from the mandate of the body which deals
    with general public policy issues related to the Internet. So, the
    Indian proposal for a new body for the latter purpose is still fully
    current. <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net"
      type="cite">
      <div> no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian
        bureaucrat.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    It was government of India proposal with clearance from the highest
    level, and all concerned ministries. Daily Mail, which has an overly
    conservative image even in UK, isnt the most authoritative source of
    Southern geo politics. <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net"
      type="cite">
      <div>   And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd
        make it viable even if India had not repudiated it.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Again, India never repudiated it.<br>
    <br>
    In any case, the main burden of my email is not that there is one
    view on the subject, but that we need to begin a structured
    discussion on the needed institutional frameworks.<br>
    <br>
    parminder <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    parminder<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net"
      type="cite">
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison
        with the ICCP is thankfully, moot.<br>
        <br>
        --srs (iPad)</div>
      <div><br>
        On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
          href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
        wrote:<br>
        <br>
      </div>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <div>
          <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
            http-equiv="Content-Type">
          <br>
          <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56
            AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:<br>
          </div>
          <blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
            type="cite">
            <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
              charset=UTF-8">
            <div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
              #000000;font-size: 10pt;">
              <div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
                color:#000000; font-size:10pt"><snip><br>
                <br>
                The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically
                in stone by the end the year. Well not the end of the
                year, say December 15.  Whether by the coalition of the
                willing, or others.<br>
                <br>
                Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and
                other governments and oh yeah the telco elephants
                definitely in the room have just  7 weeks to come up
                with something sensible.<br>
                <br>
                So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic
                of 2014 (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a
                scary thing...) will accomplish anything substantive.
                (quick! we need a photo op to ward of the wicked
                plenipot)<br>
                <br>
                Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of
                patching ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are
                hearing:  zero<br>
                <br>
                Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else'
                ICANN-like orphan issues home of some coherence into
                existence: zero <br>
                <br>
                 (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan
                somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we could do
                worse than starting with blowing up OECD's ICCP and
                related processes to a global model in some mind meld
                with ICANN as a the sugar daddy/cash machine to fund and
                to offer prototypical msh processes for the
                borrowing...but has anyone advocated that or anything in
                particular else? Nope, didn't think so.) </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
          <br>
          Lee,<br>
          <br>
          India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part,
          is basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great
          improvement over it, since the CIRP proposal outlines an
          organic link of the new proposed 'policy development body'
          with the IGF.  In its latest submission to the WG on EC, India
          has sought separate treatment of oversight and other public
          policy issues, and therefore seem to indeed have removed the
          I* oversight part from the proposed CIRP - which makes it
          almost identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF linkage bonus. <br>
          <br>
          And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have
          given a specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD
          ICCP kind of global body, (2) deal with the
          internationalisation of oversight issue separately through a
          techno-political body with a very thin and clearly constrained
          role, and (3) globally accept and formally recognise the
          current distributed architecture of technical and logical
          infrastructure related policy making and implementation
          processes. <br>
          <br>
          In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians
          have listed two key objectives for the proposed summit -
          outlines of an global institutional framework, and some global
          Internet related principles. <br>
          <br>
          I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global
          institutional framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1)
          Internet related public policy issues  (which category has
          been called as 'orphan issues' in some recent discussions),
          (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3) technical
          and logical structure policy development and day to day
          technical operations. <br>
          <br>
          And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin
          with some principles listed in  Dilma's UN speech as a good
          starting point. <br>
          <br>
          We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over
          procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil
          summit initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new
          non-gov stakeholders coalition, which also seeks to develop
          substantive positions. We need to get pro-active, and produce
          substantive positions towards the summit. <br>
          <br>
          parminder <br>
          <br>
          <br>
          <br>
          <br>
          <br>
          <blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
            type="cite">
            <div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
              #000000;font-size: 10pt;">
              <div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
                color:#000000; font-size:10pt">And besides, since when
                were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot matters?
                Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or
                Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the
                last several decades, to realize what is really likely
                to happen there. Or not.<br>
                <br>
                Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed
                smell like a classic 'Summit' in the making, where the
                main outcome is indeed the group hug/photo op. And a
                press release.<br>
                <br>
                If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2
                cents:<br>
                <br>
                forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on
                the 1-2 page press release. <br>
                <br>
                Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming
                out of this.<br>
                <br>
                Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can
                boil down to say 5 bullet points what we want from the
                summit, then we should say it. <br>
                <br>
                Rather than wasting time saying please may I
                (participate, attend, whatever), let's just get to the
                (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but remember if we are now
                dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: deal with
                it, and be very succinct.<br>
                <br>
                Lee<br>
                <br>
                <br>
                <br>
                <div style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000;
                  font-size:16px">
                  <hr tabindex="-1">
                  <div id="divRpF134106" style="direction:ltr"><font
                      color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b>
                      <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                        href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
                      [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                        href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
                      on behalf of David Cake [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                        href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au">dave@difference.com.au</a>]<br>
                      <b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM<br>
                      <b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                        href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
                      Milton L Mueller<br>
                      <b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits
                      strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime<br>
                    </font><br>
                  </div>
                  <div><br>
                    <div>
                      <div>On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller
                        <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU" target="_blank">mueller@SYR.EDU</a>>
                        wrote:</div>
                      <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div style="font-family:Helvetica;
                          font-size:medium; font-style:normal;
                          font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
                          letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal;
                          orphans:2; text-indent:0px;
                          text-transform:none; white-space:normal;
                          widows:2; word-spacing:0px;
                          word-wrap:break-word">
                          <div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
                            font-size:10pt"><span
                              style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                              font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                              background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">On Thu,
                              Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake </span><span
                              dir="ltr" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                              font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                              background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><<a
                                moz-do-not-send="true"
                                href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au"
                                style="color:rgb(17,85,204)"
                                target="_blank">dave@difference.com.au</a>></span><span
                              style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                              font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                              background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> wrote:</span><br
                              style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                              font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                              background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
                            <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
                              style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                              font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                              background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
                              margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;
                              border-left-width:1px;
                              border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);
                              border-left-style:solid; padding-left:1ex">
                              <div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br>
                                <div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"></span>Everything

                                  that Fadi etc have been saying says
                                  that their primary motivation is to
                                  avoid a multi-lateral government led
                                  body for Internet governance, that the
                                  ITU plenipot etc are forcing their
                                  timing (in their opinion), and that
                                  they are in a hurry to create a
                                  multi-stakeholder process that can
                                  stand as a clear alternative. And it
                                  is clear that they have no idea what
                                  exact form that will take, are very
                                  keen to have buy in from CS or any
                                  other group that will lend the effort
                                  credibility and participate
                                  constructively, and they are to a
                                  large extent rushing things largely
                                  due to circumstances/opportunity,
                                  improvising as they go, and basically
                                  dancing as fast as they can (and boy
                                  can Fadi dance). <br>
                                </div>
                              </div>
                            </blockquote>
                            <div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                              font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                              background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> <br>
                            </div>
                            <div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                              font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                              background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
                              position:static; z-index:auto"> It is not
                              possible to be a more adamant opponent of
                              inter-governmental control of the internet
                              than me. However, I feel very suspicious
                              of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to
                              rally uncritical support for hasty and
                              often ill-considered responses. There was
                              a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived.
                              There was WCIT in 2012. There was no
                              serious attempt to take over the Internet,
                              and the final treaty that provoked so much
                              rejection was really not that bad. Now we
                              are told we have to get all scared again
                              and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about
                              fixing ICANN and the actual Internet
                              governance institutions, but to deal with
                              an extremely broad agenda merely in order
                              to pre-empt the ITU. </div>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <span class="Apple-tab-span"
                        style="white-space:pre"></span>Fadi claimed to
                      have spoken to several government leaders (of
                      nations like South Korea) who had become more
                      inclined to multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the
                      additional impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG
                      feeling. The Montevideo statement and outreach to
                      Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong
                      feeling among the I* that the current political
                      climate is worse than in 2010, or even in 2012. I
                      can't say whether their impressions are correct,
                      but it does seem likely that they would strongly
                      reject the line of argument you are putting here. </div>
                    <div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
                        style="white-space:pre"></span>I don't think we
                      have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to
                      fix ICANN and other institutions. The
                      incorporation of a change in the IANA contract at
                      least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for
                      renegotiation, I would have thought. And good.</div>
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    <div><br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div style="font-family:Helvetica;
                          font-size:medium; font-style:normal;
                          font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
                          letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal;
                          orphans:2; text-indent:0px;
                          text-transform:none; white-space:normal;
                          widows:2; word-spacing:0px;
                          word-wrap:break-word">
                          <div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
                            font-size:10pt">
                            <div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                              font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                              background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
                              position:static; z-index:auto"> And yet,
                              Brazil is basically defecting from the
                              pro-government coalition, the WCIT results
                              have made it clear that there is nothing
                              close to an international consensus on
                              inserting the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit
                              more sober and realistic about what is
                              happening? </div>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
                          style="white-space:pre"></span>Well, sure -
                        but Fadi has more contact with government
                        leaders than I do, so if he says things are
                        substantially worse since WCIT, I have no reason
                        to doubt him either. </div>
                      <br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div style="font-family:Helvetica;
                          font-size:medium; font-style:normal;
                          font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
                          letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal;
                          orphans:2; text-indent:0px;
                          text-transform:none; white-space:normal;
                          widows:2; word-spacing:0px;
                          word-wrap:break-word">
                          <div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
                            font-size:10pt">
                            <div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                              font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                              background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
                              position:static; z-index:auto"> More to
                              the point, why don't WE try to set the
                              agenda, instead of letting those who run
                              the I* institutions do so? Why are you
                              always reacting to their initiatives
                              instead of taking your own?</div>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <span class="Apple-tab-span"
                        style="white-space:pre"></span>We could have,
                      but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a
                      little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something
                      would emerge spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it
                      didn't and they perceived it as becoming urgent
                      they started the process themselves. </div>
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    <div><br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div style="font-family:Helvetica;
                          font-size:medium; font-style:normal;
                          font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
                          letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal;
                          orphans:2; text-indent:0px;
                          text-transform:none; white-space:normal;
                          widows:2; word-spacing:0px;
                          word-wrap:break-word">
                          <div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
                            font-size:10pt">
                            <div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                              font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                              background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">  </div>
                            <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
                              style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                              font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                              background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
                              margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;
                              border-left-width:1px;
                              border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);
                              border-left-style:solid; padding-left:1ex">
                              <div style="word-wrap:break-word">
                                <div> </div>
                                <div>This isn't an ICANN centric
                                  process. Yes, a renewed discussion
                                  about IANA and ICANN accountability
                                  can, and should, form part of that
                                  discussion. I can assure others in
                                  civil society that those of us
                                  involved with ICANN (including Milton
                                  and myself) are very keen to lead
                                  critical discussions about ICANN
                                  accountability. I find it very odd
                                  over the last few days to be cast into
                                  the role of defender of ICANN against
                                  paranoia and misinformation - there
                                  are quite enough valid reasons to
                                  criticise ICANN (and the near allergic
                                  reaction to the idea of real
                                  accountability from parts of its
                                  leadership are among them) without
                                  making up conspiracies or
                                  misrepresenting its processes. <br>
                                </div>
                                <div><br>
                                </div>
                              </div>
                            </blockquote>
                            <div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                              font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                              background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> <br>
                            </div>
                            <div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                              font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                              background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
                              position:static; z-index:auto"> I don't
                              see any paranoia or misinformation about
                              ICANN in my messages. I just see a
                              long-term understanding of how we need to
                              reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about
                              CS being used (again), and a determination
                              to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's
                              wonderful initiative. I do appreciate some
                              of the things Fadi has done. I just don't
                              think we need to be driven by fear. </div>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <br>
                    </div>
                    <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Well,

                    you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory,
                    but I'll cede the point - my comments weren't aimed
                    at you specifically, as of course you do have strong
                    understanding of ICANNs processes, though you do
                    still seem to see this through a somewhat
                    ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is
                    likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing.
                    While an opportunity to discuss the IANA contract,
                    oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that really
                    doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what the
                    Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly
                    central role might have more to do with Fadi
                    personally choosing to push the process along. 
                    <div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
                        style="white-space:pre"></span><br>
                      <div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
                          style="white-space:pre"></span>Regards</div>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
                          style="white-space:pre"></span>David</div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
          <br>
        </div>
      </blockquote>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br>
          <span>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:</span><br>
          <span>     <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span><br>
          <span>To be removed from the list, visit:</span><br>
          <span>     <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a></span><br>
          <span></span><br>
          <span>For all other list information and functions, see:</span><br>
          <span>     <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a></span><br>
          <span>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:</span><br>
          <span>     <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br>
          <span></span><br>
          <span>Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br>
        </div>
      </blockquote>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>