<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Parminder<br>
<br>
Thanks for picking up that the APC submission is not included in the
CSTD WG question compiliation.<br>
Also, the Best Bits submission, while there, is not noted as being
from Best Bits, it just mentioned a few of the endorsing
institutions.<br>
<br>
I will write to them.<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08/10/2013 09:10, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5253AFF2.2000104@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 08 October 2013 12:13 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Verdana">Dear Ian<br>
<br>
*<b>Most importantly</b>*, if indeed they really seek any
"truly substantial" change/evolution of current mechanisms why
did they not say so in their recent response to the
questionnaire of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation,
which inter alia asks them this precise question. In fact the
question on the needed "most appropriate mechanisms" has a
specific sub question on technical management aspect of global
IG. At least three of the signatories to the Montevedio
statement send their responses to the questionnaire - ICANN,
ARIN and LACNIC. </font></blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Verdana">In fact four of them. I forgot to mention
ISOC.<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net"
type="cite"><font face="Verdana">There is no indication at all
in their responses to the questionnaire that they seek any
"truly substantial" evolution anywhere. Everything of the
status quo appears to them pretty all right.<br>
<br>
In the circumstances, would one be amiss is considering this
Montevideo statement as largely being merely for public
consumption, while the views of the same organisations at
places where such views really matter are rather different. <br>
<br>
BTW, responses to WGEC questionaire can be seen at <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396">http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396</a>
. Incidentally, IT for Change's responses are missing from the
compilation. So also I think APC's, and therefore there may be
even some more missing here. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 08 October 2013 11:21
AM, Ian Peter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:ADFFFCEC32124534A768BC140520C9AA@Toshiba"
type="cite">Its interesting to contrast this article with the
Montevideo statement released a little bit later from the
technical community. As regards criticisms of current internet
governance structures, the technical community added <br>
<br>
" The leaders discussed the clear need to continually
strengthen and evolve these mechanisms, in truly substantial
ways, to be able to address emerging issues faced by
stakeholders in the Internet." <br>
<br>
Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text,
but a recognition that significant change must take place. <br>
<br>
Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were <br>
<br>
<br>
* They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet
operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a
national level. They expressed strong concern over the
undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users
globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and
surveillance. <br>
<br>
*They identified the need for ongoing effort to address
Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze
community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global
multistakeholder Internet cooperation. <br>
<br>
*They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and
IANA functions, towards an environment in which all
stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an
equal footing. <br>
<br>
(there was also a statement re IPv6) <br>
<br>
I mention these in this context because there appears to be a
lot of common ground with the technical community now as
regards some of the big priorities that must be addressed, and
from this statement also a recognition that they must improve
current mechanisms "in truly substantial ways". <br>
<br>
That's good news! There are things that should be criticised
in current structures, but there is a growing opportunity to
work with the technical community to address some major points
of agreement. I hope that in our discussions of the various
viewpoints which legitimately are part of our thinking on
current structures we do not lose the opportunity to work
closely with the technical community on some over riding
policy issues on which we have substantial agreement. <br>
<br>
<br>
Ian Peter <br>
<br>
. <br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <br>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM <br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<br>
Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at
multistakeholderism". really? <br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism">http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism</a>
<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation">http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation</a>
<br>
<br>
forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority
doesnt agree with emphatically does not constitute any sort of
failure of multistakeholderism <br>
<br>
--srs <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________ <br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</pre>
</body>
</html>