<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Apr 17, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Andrea Glorioso <<a href="mailto:andrea@digitalpolicy.it">andrea@digitalpolicy.it</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear John, dear all,<br><br>an observation and a question, in-line below.<br>...</div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>The observation: often, in order to "fulfil their public policy obligations" (I think it would be better to simply say "their obligations") government *must* take actions that go beyond their borders. One can agree or disagree with the substance of e.g. ACTA and/or with the process through which it was negotiated (I won't take a position on either of the two elements) but it can be argued that "governments" decided to engage in such negotiations because they believed that the protection of the economic interests of national constituencies, relying on various forms of intellectual property protection, could be achieved only via an action which went beyond the national borders - i.e. an international agreement.<br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Agreed. Sometimes a government's public policy goals require engagement with other </div><div>governments (which is by definition activities beyond their borders) I was, probably </div><div>unsuccessfully, trying to note the distinction when it comes to enforcement, where the</div><div> most common accepted practice is that a government enforces laws and regulations </div><div>(such as those from treaties with other governments) with respect to those within its</div><div> borders, and liaisons with other governments to enforce those obligations elsewhere.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div></div></div></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div></div><div></div><div>I have stated previously that the Internet community has not provided a clear</div>
<div>framework for government engagement in "Internet Governance" in the larger </div><div>context, that being both the management of common global infrastructure unique</div><div>to the Internet as well as the processes by which governments should engage</div>
<div>to accomplish their public policy objectives. I will observe that the absence of </div><div>a clear model for governmental engagement is actually unfortunate in two aspects:</div><div>first, as governments awaken to the need for engagement with respect to the</div>
<div>Internet, the lack of an Internet community model for accomplishing their public </div><div>policy goals leads governments to look to older organizations which may not be </div><div>well-suited to the task; and secondly (and perhaps not quite as obvious) is that </div>
<div>a clear model for how governments engage to accomplish their Internet public </div><div>policy obligations might serve as a roadmap for how the USG evolves from </div><div>its present unique circumstances in these matters.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would say that the "Internet community" (whatever that might be :) has not provided a clear framework for the engagement of all different stakeholders, including governments</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agreed as well.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> (if you wish to consider governments or public authorities as a "stakeholder" - I have certain problems with such a conceptualisation, but again food for another discussion).</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>:-) </div><div><br></div><div>I believe that "government" must have the ability to participate as any other </div><div>stakeholder, but additionally, it's unique ability with respect to the use of force</div><div>(and generalized into enforcement of laws) means that it may have additional</div><div>roles to play when it comes to enforcement of norms/principles/standards/etc</div><div>beyond that which we may incorporate into any framework of "Internet Governance".</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> Therefore my question: I seem to remember that some time ago some of the people writing on this list (it might have been Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, but I might be wrong) launched the idea of developing a set of principles / guidelines to develop such a framework. Is this still being discussed somewhere?</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>Ah, I am probably not the best one to address such a question; I am here as a resource </div><div>in the support of this groups activities as needed, but will be the first to admit that the level </div><div>of activity on this list is sufficiently impressive that I can't quite keep track all of the various</div><div>ongoing efforts...</div><div><br></div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimer: My views alone. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>