<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Dear Ian<br>
<br>
We should always work closely with all communities - and technical
community is our engineers, we cant but work with them. However, I
am not so convinced that the Montevideo statements means much, if
anything at all..... We must place it in the context that, since
the world is watching, it is practically impossible for the so
called defenders of the Internet to say absolutely nothing about
the NSA affairs which has so badly wrecked public confidence in
the Internet worldwide. The statement must, therefore, be
evaluated on the criterion of whether it went beyond that was
needed to basically manage public perception and discontent....
(BTW, it is a pity that they shied away from mentioning NSA, or
even the US, by name, a courtesy which I am sure wont be extended
to another nation, seeing the extent of the crime.)<br>
<br>
You say that the part "in truly substantial ways" makes the
statement as really serious.... I would take it to be that -
really serious - if they had but mentioned one clear instance of
what would be such a "truly substantial way". Even if it was
perhaps not possible for all the current signatories to sign off
on any "real proposal" right away, can anyone here who comes close
to being one among many representatives of the technical community
propose an example of any such "truly substantial" change that
technical community is now willing to consider, post NSA/ Snowden.<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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a> <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>