<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <font face="Verdana">Apart from redoing the question-wise
      compilation </font>properly, i also asked Peter Major to in any
    case also separately provide complete responses of every responding
    entity, because often they make good sense to read as complete
    submissions. Peter has not responded to my suggestion. Maybe you and
    Joy can also add your voice... parminder <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 08 October 2013 06:42 PM,
      Carlos A. Afonso wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:rjyeudll84a9cewdypkvyjbb.1381237818680@email.android.com"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div>Nupef from BR alto endorsed APC's and Bestbits' responses and
        is not listed.</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>
        <div style="font-size:100%">------------<br>
          C. A. Afonso</div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <br>
      <br>
      -------- Original message --------<br>
      From: Anriette Esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org"><anriette@apc.org></a> <br>
      Date: 08-10-2013 05:42 (GMT-03:00) <br>
      To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a> <br>
      Subject: Re: [governance] "technical community fails at
      multistakeholderism". really? <br>
      <br>
      <br>
      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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>