<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;"><br><div><div>On 26 Oct 2014, at 7:17 am, michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><blockquote type="cite">and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>elsewhere want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image.<br></blockquote><br>NO, the opposite is true. The internet is cooperatively coordinated by a series of MS entities and processes. It is those who insist that gov't be in charge that are trying to "remake the governance of the global (Internet)"<br>[MG>] well maybe those "who insist that gov't be in charge" believe whatever it is you say they believe (you should ask them) but not sure what that has to do with my comments...<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Well, you could always ask your JNC colleague Richard Hill about why he was so keen on the ITU taking on more control over Internet governance, I'm sure he will be happy to explain. </div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>If you, or the JNC generally, believe that government led, multi-lateral, fora such as the ITU, are also inappropriate for transnational Internet government, I'm sure there are many who would appreciate clarifying your position. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><blockquote type="cite">Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>intentions (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>buy—cheap) or maybe it is a calculated move by some and naivety by<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>others to find a way of giving the global (primarily US based)<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>corporates a governance model which formalizes and legitimizes their<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of global<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>governance of which the Internet is only one—<br></blockquote><br>No, we just want to keep MSism as the dominant paradigm of IG, not of any other area of governance.<br>[MG>] good for you... but you should take you nose out of the router box and take a look at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><a href="http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/US Steercom Reelection Letter - signed by J 6-12-14.pdf">http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/US%20Steercom%20Reelection%20Letter%20-%20signed%20by%20J%206-12-14.pdf</a><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I find myself truly baffled as to what you find so sinister about USG support of open government initiatives. Is this just circular reasoning, whereby it is deemed to be bad because the USG is doing it, which can then be taken as an example of the USGs sinister agenda?</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I know the open government folks in Australia, and they are terrific, the open government movement is something I would have thought CS was unreservedly in favour of, but apparently not.... </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><a href="http://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/34304919.pdf">http://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/34304919.pdf</a><br><a href="http://www.slideshare.net/OECD-DAF/kane-may2014">http://www.slideshare.net/OECD-DAF/kane-may2014</a><br>etc.etc.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Yes, corporate investment in nations with weak governance raises a host of policy questions, and the USG has a position on this. Are there specific relevant points in regards to Internet governance, or transnational governance in general, that you are trying to make here?</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><blockquote type="cite">They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>mention this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" -<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the status<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance?<br></blockquote><br><br>Because by and large CS is in favour of MSism. We saw that from WSIS thru NetMundial.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>CS is in favour of MSism, but that doesn't mean the status quo. Look at, for example, the moves through NetMundial and within ICANN to bring human rights explicitly into the policy processes of technical organisations, largely led by CS (and resisted by the technical community). </div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Cheers</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>David</div></body></html>