<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>in practice - we have seen international agreements depend on a bedrock that all signatories can agree on.</div><div><br></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><br></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></body></html>