<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Hi Wolfgang<div><br><div><div>On Nov 7, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <<a href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de">wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Hi,<br><br>to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts. As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities).<br><br>For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy”.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>+1<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. <br></blockquote><div><br></div>Sorry, but your acronym making machine may need a tune up. If it’s at the annual IGF, it should be Multistakeholder Yearly Organizing Policies for the Internet Council (MYOPIC).</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">MIPOC could be composed in a similar way like the WGEC and put on top of the IGF (and linked to the MAG). MIPOC could draw conclusions from the IGF discussions and clear what the right way would be to deal with issues which where raised by IGF plenaries or workshops. MIPOC would not take decisons but would recommend how and by whom the issues should be further discussed (and decided). MIPOC could send issues to IGOs, INGOs, technical organisations or a combination of those organisations (as an implementation of EC). Or it could - as IETF is doing - create in a bottom up open and transparent process a working group or a multistakeholder task force to move towards rough consensus. This has to be done on a case by case basis and only where needed, that is where a critical mass of stakeholders have identified an issue as a problem which needs a policy. <br><br><br>wolfgang<br><br><br>Von: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> im Auftrag von Adam Peake<br>Gesendet: Do 07.11.2013 09:13<br>An: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; John Curran<br>Cc: parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; <,<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>,<br>Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime<br><br>Hi John,<br><br>On Nov 7, 2013, at 5:03 AM, John Curran wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:47 PM, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Parminder - <br><br>For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda?<br><br></blockquote>John<br><br>The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote<br><br>"69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. "<br><br>This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them. <br></blockquote><br></blockquote><br>I don't find paragraph 69 easy to read and understand, too many commas. But, I think paragraph 77 of the Tunis Agenda gives direction when it says, among other things, the IGF "would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet". We've had 8 years experience with IGF agendas and know what topics fall under its mandate, what is/is not day-to-day technical and operational matters. Clearly the I* etc. are not safe from these proposals.<br><br>I think we can expect the current responsibilities of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Number Resource Organization (NRO), both policy coordination/development bodies, would be subsumed by this new "institutional solution" (UN body?). As would the IANA function, global address pool, etc. As would the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), which coordinates global ccTLD policy, etc, etc. I guess you'd still be able to hand out addresses on a day-to-day basis, but the RIRs' bottom-up policy development processes used to guide those allocations would in future likely be sent down from the new institution. Probably coordination of protocol development would come under the new institution: The IETF meeting taking place now in Vancouver would see representatives of the institution on stage, etc.<br><br>Tunis Agenda suggests WSIS implementation shouldn't involve the creation of any new institutions, something that was also made clear soon after Tunis in discussions about the organization of the IGF. I guess that means this new "institutional solution" will be part of an existing entity. It will be UN, and in the UN family the ITU would stand out as being the competent agency.<br><br>And somehow all this must be paid for. UN is slashing budgets, the ITU has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.)<br><br>Not good.<br><br>Best,<br><br>Adam<br><br><br><br><blockquote type="cite">Thanks for the reminder.<br><br>So on the question of terminology - <br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet <br>substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"?<br><br></blockquote></blockquote>these are "Internet _public policy_ issues", as opposed to "Internet policy development issues"...<br><br>Are we all using the phrase "Internet public policy" consistently, when referring to matters of <br>norms and customs on the Internet? (e.g. there are likely aspects of globalization of ICANN<br>and IANA which pose Internet public policy issues, and others aspects which are operational<br>matters)<br><br>/John<br><br>Disclaimers: My views alone. No public policy proposed in this email.<br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></blockquote><br><br><br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></blockquote></div><br><div apple-content-edited="true">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Palatino; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Palatino; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Palatino; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">**********************************************************<br>William J. Drake<br>International Fellow & Lecturer<br> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ<br> University of Zurich, Switzerland<br>Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, <br> ICANN, <a href="http://www.ncuc.org">www.ncuc.org</a><br><a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a> (w), <a href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com">wjdrake@gmail.com</a> (h),<br> <a href="http://www.williamdrake.org">www.williamdrake.org</a><br>***********************************************************</div></div></div>
</div>
<br></div></body></html>