<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;}
/* 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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">Avri<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">As for the CSTD WG EC itself, as one of those who was honored with the choice, what is it this group thinks is important? I would really like to hear what it is this group thinks
needs to be done?<br>
<br>
</span><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] Thanks for posing a useful and constructive question in this thread. I will elaborate my thoughts in greater detail in an upcoming blog post analyzing the
ITU-SG report for the WTPF. But in a nutshell, I am concerned about the extent to which ITU and certain other advocates of “Enhanced Cooperation” (EC) are emphasizing the definition of “multi-stakeholderism” (MuSH) that emerged from the WSIS – i.e., the definition
that reserves policy making authority to sovereigns and relegates the rest of to “our respective roles.”
<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">While I recognize that these people have the wording of the Tunis Agenda on their side, the TA was in fact a document negotiated by
and for states, without civil society or the private sector’s full and equal participation, or consent, and thus imho it has no binding authority on the rest of us. Someone needs to uphold a more consistent and new-polity approach to MuSH which emphasizes
the legitimacy and authority of new internet institutions to develop ‘public policy’, and someone needs to explain to states that their monopoly on “public policy” development in their own jurisdictions does not automatically translate into the same powers
transnationally. Unless we take a firmer stand on this, I fear that Internet institutions such as the RIRs or ICANN will see it as being in their interests to strike an accommodation with sovereigns to give them veto powers or other forms of arbitrary intervention
in putatively bottom-up policy processes (much as ICANN is already doing).<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">That’s for starters…;-)<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">Insofar as EC is still about US control of the root – I do think that’s still important, and should not be swept under the rug. As
you probably know, I still believe that the answer is not “inter”nationalization but de-nationalization.
<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>