<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:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@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","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>But surely that is the point of civil society, not to be a cheer leader for the status quo but rather to push governments and others towards their higher angels.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>M<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh@hserus.net] <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:10 PM<br><b>To:</b> gurstein@gmail.com; 'Michael Kende'; governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Of course you will have to expect that not all proposals submitted will be driven by pure altruism. <br><br>Narrower interests... Protectionism, politics, whatever else will inform several proposals. <br><br>And you can't rely on the major players being purely driven by altruism, I'm afraid. <br><br>--srs (htc one x)<br><br><br>----- Reply message -----<br>From: "michael gurstein" <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>><br>To: "'Michael Kende'" <<a href="mailto:Michael.Kende@analysysmason.com">Michael.Kende@analysysmason.com</a>>, <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>><br>Subject: [governance]<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127">http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127</a><br>Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 2:26 AM<br><br></span><br>Hi Michael,<br><br><br><br>We can do some thought experiments around what option #2 would look like as<br>for example, to deal with the issues of global/natonal security on the<br>Internet but at the end of the day my guess is that it would look rather<br>like a UN agency except one that had been updated from 19th century modes of<br>operation (and assumptions about appropriate structures of governance) to<br>ones more reflective of 21st century modes/assumptions and technology.<br><br><br><br>How we get from here to there is of course, a challenge but if the major<br>players are in fact operating in good faith with an overarching concern for<br>the health and well being of the Internet infrastructure as a global public<br>good rather than pursuing narrow national or commercial interests then<br>developing a suitable set of mechanisms shouldn't be impossible.<br><br><br><br>And you are right about "incumbents"--I was of course referring to dominant<br>Internet players rather than telco incumbents.<br><br><br><br>Best,<br><br><br><br>Mike<br><br><br><br>From: Michael Kende [<a href="mailto:Michael.Kende@analysysmason.com">mailto:Michael.Kende@analysysmason.com</a>] <br>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:20 PM<br>To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; michael gurstein; 'Lee W McKnight'<br>Subject: RE: [governance]<br><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320">http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320</a><br>121127<br><br><br><br>Michael,<br><br><br><br>What would #2 look like? Who would be responsible, what jurisdiction would<br>they have, what hole would they fill? I think it is possible to prefer 1<br>over 3 even if you might prefer #2 to emerge, but there is no broadly<br>articulated alternative, so what would you propose?<br><br><br><br>Michael<br><br><br>PS since a number of commercial incumbents are in fact behind one of the<br>proposals to add Internet issues to the ITRs, I do not think your last<br>statement is strictly accurate.<br><br><br><br><br><br>From: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>[<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] On Behalf Of michael gurstein<br>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:03 PM<br>To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; 'Lee W McKnight'<br>Subject: RE: [governance]<br><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320">http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320</a><br>121127<br><br><br><br>I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the<br>WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall<br>into:<br><br> 1. no regulation of the Internet period<br><br> 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in<br>certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU<br><br> 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue<br>areas by the ITU<br><br><br><br>It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come<br>from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they<br>have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2<br>(based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community)<br>to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and<br>#3.<br><br><br><br>That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the<br>current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course purely<br>accidental.<br><br><br><br>M<br><br><br><br><br><br>From: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>[<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight<br>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM<br>To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>Subject: [governance]<br><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320">http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320</a><br>121127<br><br><br><br>In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT.<br><br><br><br><br> _____ <br><br>This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to<br>our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. <br><br>Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered<br>office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number<br>05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email <a href="mailto:enquiries@analysysmason.com">enquiries@analysysmason.com</a> or visit<br><a href="http://www.analysysmason.com">www.analysysmason.com</a> <br><br> _____ <o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>