<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thanks for being a voice of reason on this John - imho.<br>
<br>
This is a remarkable summary of what is needed in practice. <br>
<br>
So just a few bon mots...<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/12/01 12:15 AM, John Curran
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2124C4C7-D8E3-4FA6-B2F2-1250566D9946@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<base href="x-msg://132/">
<div>
<div>
<div>On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:26 PM, michael gurstein <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; ">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span
style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; ">That
challenge is to find a way that we all globally, can
allow the Internet to fulfill the possibilities for
all of us that it presents (and in ways that are
meaningful to all of us in our global diversity) --
and that means finding a way to reconcile sometimes
extremely divergent interests and perspectives
concerning for example, what issues are
important/necessary to resolve and where they can be
resolved and who/how should be involved in resolving
them.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>Agreed.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The challenge is that the Internet is truly a global
system, and we lack good mechanisms</div>
<div>for development of true agreement on public policy issues
when applied to a global scope.</div>
<div>There are some feedback loops which operate reasonable well
in the context of a single </div>
<div>country. (For example, the response of consumers, and civil
society on their behalf, to </div>
<div>"bad" decisions by businesses with respect to privacy
results in lots of attention, and</div>
<div>sometimes even results changes to the errant business
practices.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
There are mechanisms that can deal with this, but there are some
truly crazy muppets out there, who despite their politeness are
rather disruptive (think single rooters! or multiple rooters
whatever your predilection) to debate. It matters not a wit that
even in a non-binding multistakeholder format that CIR can be
discussed without the cacacophony of obsequious ICANNers! And this
sets a tone for engagement... that is robust "American" like it is
at the IETF, except of course if one tries to give as good as one
gets... <br>
<br>
So I think there needs to be some greater balance (even in a recent
post I was accused of ad hominem attacks - a discussion that
promptly went substantive, belying the aspersion cast). There really
do need to be some voices that manage the complexity of what we
face. I had suggested that perhaps those that have legitimacy
concerns about be consulted more in civil lists/orgs like this so
that their voices are still heard, and not completely marginalised.
Even that is a tall order... so much for inclusiveness, eh? Not that
it is anyone's job in particular to pick up this "job", I mention it
merely that it is indicative of the fact that the very important
matter of participation by some elements falls between the stools;
even in the context where the clarion call is to participate. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2124C4C7-D8E3-4FA6-B2F2-1250566D9946@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>In an ideal world, there would be a way to encourage
productive discussion of the various</div>
<div>public policy principles that should be applicable to
Internet communications on a global</div>
<div>scope, and such discussions would multistakeholder in
nature, open in participation, and </div>
<div>transparent in the processes used to reach outcomes (there
is a little bit of a challenge in </div>
<div>accomplishing such, since making the final determinations
of what is appropriate public </div>
<div>policy is one of areas that has been considered the realm
of governments, and yet we are</div>
<div>collectively unsure if that model continues to work in our
new highly connected world)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is brilliant. And idealist we must be. However, as MSG
discussions have shown, corporates seem to benefit more than public
interest groups. While arguable, like the issue above, it tends to
fall between the stools. And let us be clear, there is very little
balance in these types of discussions. Corporates are making
decisions, and standard terms of contracts, privacy agreements etc
are being plastically written all the time, so there needs to be
some balance in the contest of vested interests... <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2124C4C7-D8E3-4FA6-B2F2-1250566D9946@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>If we could produce clear statements of public policy
principles, and the statements were </div>
<div>made known to existing Internet governance institutions,
then they would quite likely be </div>
<div>considered in development of the various technical
standards and policies that we need </div>
<div>to keep the Internet running. Likewise, if folks working
on such standards and policies </div>
<div>took significant measures to keep governments and civil
society aware of the ongoing </div>
<div>developments, it would help in avoiding conflicts between
Internet practices and the </div>
<div>globally accepted principles in any given public policy
area.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Here I agree. There is a lot the IGC has done and a great deal more
it can do. But I think what is needed is more tolerance of
intellectual diversity - so that interests can be better understood.
It is trite to mention that whenever public interest is mentioned in
policy, one should look out for the vested interest. I suggest that
this vigilence be heightened here as the robust engagements (and
some would say politically incorrect) allow for a sharpening of
differences as much as bridging...<br>
<br>
I do wish you would contribute more... <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2124C4C7-D8E3-4FA6-B2F2-1250566D9946@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>p.s. Disclaimers apply. My views alone. Use of this
email may trigger visions and/or</div>
<div>produce delusions, paranoia, and schizophrenia-like
symptoms. Use sparingly and </div>
<div>seek appropriate medical treatment as needed.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>