<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 20 April 2013 07:54 PM,
John Curran wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:40A27D5C-831B-4358-BB4A-E59267678E0E@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>
<div>On Apr 1, 2013, at 10:11 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com">bdelachapelle@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style=""><font color="#333333" face="Verdana"><br>
</font></div>
<div style=""><font color="#333333" face="Verdana">During
the last few months, three conferences (IGF, WCIT,
WSIS+10) have helped clarify the landscape:</font></div>
<div style="">
<ul style="">
<li style=""><span
style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana">the
existing Internet institutional ecosystem (RIRs,
standards bodies like IETF or W3C, ICANN, etc...) is
dealing in a distributed manner with the governance
OF the Internet, but does not (and should not)
provide a venue for issues related to the governance
ON the Internet (privacy, freedom of expression,
copyright, security, etc...)</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Bertrand, We agree that the latter set of issues - which I call
larger Internet-related public policy issues or just
Internet-related public policy issues in contrast to CIR management,
which is the former set of issues above - remains unaddressed, in a
truly global and democratic manner. We should focus on the two sets
of issues separately - as two different tracks - in the Woking
Group on enhanced cooperation and other enhanced cooperation
discussions. I hope we can agree to this proposition at the issue
framing level.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, I understand that your prescription for addressing the
'Internet related public policy issues' part is to set up
issue-based governance networks. I am happy to discuss this proposal
in full seriousness, and to its finest detail. It is a clear
contribution to the enhanced cooperation discussion. (more on this
in another email.) Please do make a fully detailed proposal on it to
the Woking Group. <br>
<br>
Another note to John's comment below. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:40A27D5C-831B-4358-BB4A-E59267678E0E@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<div>Bertrand - </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Apologies for a very belated reply, but I've been thinking
about the above text and </div>
<div> wondering if there is a fundamental difference between
"dealing in a distributed </div>
<div> manner with the governance OF the Internet" and "a venue
for issues related to the </div>
<div> governance ON the Internet", and if, as a result, we in the
community are making a</div>
<div> significant mistake in referring to both on occasions as
"Internet Governance"...</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am very much for a separate treatment of the two set of issues.
And I see good agreement for their separation here. What the two
sets are respectively called is not so mich a problem with me as
long they are separated in the 'enhanced cooperation' discussion.
Whether one is called Internet governance and other as 'Social
Network Governance' or whatever..... (I prefer to call one as
'technical governance of the Internet' and the other as
'socio-political governance of the Internet', both together
constituting Internet governance.)<br>
<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:40A27D5C-831B-4358-BB4A-E59267678E0E@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thoughts?</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Disclaimers: My views alone. The term "Internet" in the
above refers to the unique</div>
<div> global communications capability based
upon the "Internet Protocol."</div>
<div> (both versions :-)</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>