<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Sivasubramanian M <<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><p>On Aug 3, 2012 6:29 AM, "John Curran" <<a href="mailto:jcurran@istaff.org">jcurran@istaff.org</a>> wrote:</p><p>
> After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these <br>
> functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet <br>
> resources, including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs, the<br>
> formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. </p><p>Who knows this? Who understands this? How many people know that it takes no more than $3k to mirror the ICANN root server? A few among the few thousand ICANN / IG / RIR / ISOC participants. In a world of sensational headlines on unilateral control of the root, all these positive goodness is buried in fine print. The gestures I have talked about would be a visible, graphic answer to the bad headlines.</p></blockquote><div>If you are suggesting the USG needs some help in doing PR with regards to its positive</div><div>steps in Internet Governance over the last two decades, I would not argue with that...</div><blockquote type="cite"><p>
> None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture of total unwillingness"...</p><p>So it appears to the common man, or made to appear to the common man in a carefully archestrated propaganda of misleading 'headlines' that appears to me to be a psychological campaign with carefully calculated omissions. </p></blockquote><div>Indeed. I believe that some actively obscure or misrepresent the USG track record in </div><div>facilitating decentralization of Internet Governance since inception of the Internet. Like</div><div>many things in this world, it is not perfect, but I do believe that has been an enabler of</div><div>discussion of open and transparent multi-stakeholder governance which might easily not</div><div>have otherwise occurred.</div><blockquote type="cite"><p>>> As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed<br>
> the Internet community itself?</p><p>:-)</p></blockquote><div>Thanks for raising this important topic!</div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimers: My views alone. Email written at higher altitudes may lack coherence;</div><div>use at your own risk.</div><div><br></div></div></body></html>