<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> <st1:PersonName
w:st="on">Robert Guerra</st1:PersonName> [mailto:lists@privaterra.info] <br>
</span></font><br>
2. In my view - RIRs should be included as a full member in our IGC
discussions.<br>
<br>
<font color=navy><span style='color:navy'>Robert, <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3 color=navy
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>I think you
have missed the target in this increasingly tiresome discussion. No one –
not me, not Parminder, not anyone else – has ever proposed to exclude RIR
representatives from our discussions. Indeed, I have urged people here to get
involved in RIR policy discussion lists, and vice-versa. No one disputes that RIRs
play an important role in global IG, either. As has been said repeatedly, the real
issue is: who represents us on the MAG – “us” being the IGC –
when we discuss RIR policy in the context of the IGF? Do you want an RIR staff
person or an independent voice? Same goes for ICANN, ITU, WIPO, etc. Is there
not a problem if our “representative” in discussions of ICANN is
someone who works for ICANN? No one has ever said that ICANN or an RIR should
not be able to participate in the broader discussions of their role in global
internet governance. The issue is who represents _<i><span style='font-style:
italic'>us</span></i>_ in that discussion. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3 color=navy
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>As I said
earlier, <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>RIR's membership is
predominantly, though not exclusively, composed of commercial hosting companies
and ISPs -- the most common consumers of IP address blocks. But there are also
govt agencies and CS groups. RIRs are better thought of as multi-stakeholder
regulatory organizations, not as CS, business or govt. Within the framework of
IGF and the Tunis Agenda, they fit squarely in the category of
"international organizations" along with ICANN. So of course RIRs and
ICANN, like other international governance organizations such as OECD or ITU,
will be and absolutely should be represented in the MAG and in panels, etc. --
as IOs.</span></font><font color=navy><span style='color:navy'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3 color=navy
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>As governance
entities RIRs are accountable to _<i><span style='font-style:italic'>their own
members</span></i>_ not to us (IGC). As governors, RIR leaders should be
accountable to and listen to what the different sectors of society have to say
about IG policy. They are welcome on our list, they are welcome in our
dialogue. But they are not our representatives. They are representatives of
their own memberships. I don’t see how anyone can deny this simple
observation. IG organizations should not have a dual, contradictory role. And
since RIRs are extremely well-resourced organizations that are well-represented
in every conceivable IG Forum, it is hard to understand this manufactured complaint
about their somehow being excluded and powerless in these dialogues. It is getting
a bit silly, is it not? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>