I think we have to push hard for #1, and hope we get a tolerable version of #2.<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">Ginger (Virginia) Paque<br><br><div><a href="mailto:VirginiaP@diplomacy.edu" target="_blank">VirginiaP@diplomacy.edu</a><br>
<span style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">Diplo Foundation<br>Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme<br><a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig" target="_blank">www.diplomacy.edu/ig</a><span style="padding-right:16px;width:16px;height:16px"></span><br>
<span style="padding-right:16px;width:16px;height:16px"></span><span style="padding-right:16px;width:16px;height:16px"></span><span style="padding-right:16px;width:16px;height:16px"></span><div><i></i><br><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><b><i><span style="font-size:10pt"></span></i></b></span></div>
</span></div><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 27 November 2012 17:45, michael gurstein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">M<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></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:<a href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net" target="_blank">suresh@hserus.net</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:10 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>; 'Michael Kende'; <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance]<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></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" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>><br>To: "'Michael Kende'" <<a href="mailto:Michael.Kende@analysysmason.com" target="_blank">Michael.Kende@analysysmason.com</a>>, <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>><br>
Subject: [governance]<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">mailto:Michael.Kende@analysysmason.com</a>] <br>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:20 PM<br>To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>[<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
[<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
Subject: [governance]<br><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320" target="_blank">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 <a href="tel:%2B44%20845%20600%205244" value="+448456005244" target="_blank">+44 845 600 5244</a>. Email <a href="mailto:enquiries@analysysmason.com" target="_blank">enquiries@analysysmason.com</a> or visit<br>
<a href="http://www.analysysmason.com" target="_blank">www.analysysmason.com</a> <br><br> _____ <u></u><u></u></p></div></div><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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>