<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Yes and several of those are already being covered across a wide range of fora that have been operational for a while.</div><div><br></div><div>Do we seek to plug gaps, or do we seek to create an overarching, as the bestbits statement idealistically puts it "techno political" one forum to rule them all?</div><div><br></div><div>This diversity - even for inter governmental cooperation - is actually something that has helped let the internet grow worldwide without being bogged down in politics.<br><br>--srs (iPad)</div><div><br>On 30-Aug-2013, at 7:57, "Ian Peter" <<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<div>I know they consume massive amounts of energy, but I am personally not very
interested in the range of issues which ICANN should cover – and nor are most
nations. For me there are much more pressing matters which threaten the Internet
than the minutia of names and numbers. It’s these wider issues which pose
threats.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ian Peter </div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<div style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<div style="font-color: black"><b>From:</b> <a title="suresh@hserus.net" href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net">Suresh Ramasubramanian</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 30, 2013 12:09 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="ian.peter@ianpeter.com" href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">Ian Peter</a> </div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a title="governance@lists.igcaucus.org" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
; <a title="nb@bollow.ch" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">Norbert Bollow</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it
is dead</div></div></div>
<div> </div></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<div>in practice - we have seen international agreements depend on a bedrock
that all signatories can agree on.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For cybercrime treaties such as the vienna convention for example, the
concept of dual criminality, and the internationally understood nature of
cybercrime - so that even regimes that don't agree on, say, human rights, find
it easier to agree on the best way to coordinate to deal with
cybercriminals.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Starting somewhere - why not start within the GAC and within the other
stakeholder groups in ICANN? Several of the groups coming forward with
feedback have never seen the inside of an ICANN meeting.<br><br>--srs
(iPad)</div>
<div><br>On 30-Aug-2013, at 6:51, "Ian Peter" <<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>>
wrote:<br><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<div>Thats probably where you have to start. But there are plenty of
international agreements that suggest you can move well beyond that.</div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<div style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<div style="font-color: black"><b>From:</b> <a title="suresh@hserus.net" href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net">Suresh Ramasubramanian</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 30, 2013 11:05 AM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="ian.peter@ianpeter.com" href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">Ian Peter</a> ; <a title="governance@lists.igcaucus.org" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
; <a title="nb@bollow.ch" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">Norbert Bollow</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know
it is dead</div></div></div>
<div> </div></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: arial">The problem is that you can only get consensus on
least common denominator mom and apple pie general principles, which will soon
break down once you try to achieve consensus on anything more specific.
<br><br>--srs (htc one x) <br><br><br>----- Reply message -----<br>From: "Ian
Peter" <<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>><br>To:
<<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>,
"Norbert Bollow" <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a>><br>Subject: [governance] Fwd:
[At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead<br>Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 5:29
AM<br><br></span><br>Hi Norbert,<br><br>the reason I originally got involved
with this internet governance stuff was <br>that nationalisation =
balkanisation in the Internet sphere.<br><br>International agreements would
overcome this and lead to more sensible <br>stable addressing of critical
issues. We are not going to get nations out of <br>the picture but we may be
able to get them to act collaboratively and set <br>principles and protocols
for addressing internet issues.<br><br>That would not be full on
"multistakeholder" governance, but it would be a <br>significant advance on
the current unilateral action status quo.<br><br>It's probably more feasible
than what most people imaging multistakeholder <br>to be. We should be
encouraging governments to act collaboratively with each <br>other, as well as
with other stakeholders.<br><br>Ian Peter<br><br>-----Original Message-----
<br>From: Norbert Bollow<br>Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:57 AM<br>To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>Subject:
Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead<br><br>I
read Diego's posting not as expressing that presumption, but as<br>questioning
the feasibility of “denationalization of Internet<br>governance”.<br><br>Are
there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is
feasible?<br><br>Greetings,<br>Norbert<br><br><br><br>Am Thu, 29 Aug 2013
21:46:32 +0000<br>schrieb Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>>:<br><br>> I would
have to reject the way you presume that the society = the<br>> state. That
is the whole point of my argument - they are not the<br>> same,
_especially_ in cyberspace. I also would have to question your<br>>
assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by<br>>
this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated<br>>
via the existence of states. Wow, what an assumption. So in the<br>>
world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA and Uruguay, or<br>>
between China and Laos. Hmmmm.<br>><br>> But of course, such problems
are not easy to overcome. No one said<br>> they
were.<br>><br>><br>> From: Diego Rafael Canabarro [<a href="mailto:diegocanabarro@gmail.com">mailto:diegocanabarro@gmail.com</a>]<br>>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM<br>> To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
Ian Peter<br>> Cc: Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake<br>> Subject: Re:
[governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it<br>> is
dead<br>><br>> The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and
States<br>> intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part
of<br>> those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries
(especially<br>> socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their
international affairs.<br>> It doesn't seem to be something easy to
overcome, does it?<br>><br>> Regards<br>> Diego<br>><br>> On
Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter<br>> <<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a><<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>>>
wrote: Well<br>> stated Milton!<br>><br>> "The choice is not "the
multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is<br>> the denationalization of
Internet governance vs. the international<br>> anarchy of governance by 190
nation-states."<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><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">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">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/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate
this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br><br><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>