<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 08 October 2013 01:13 PM,
Ian Peter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F13B91627AB45FAAB89B5D73F9253E8@Toshiba"
type="cite">
<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>Parminder, “truly substantial” is not the sort of words
you include if you are producing a motherhood statement to
appease the masses. I suspect that at least some of those
present can see that things are changing, and they must
change as well to retain any legitimacy. I suspect that
(just like us in civil society) there are some people now
arguing forcibly for substantial change while others resist
such moves.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Maybe. If you want me to wait, say six months, for a 'truly
substantial' proposal for change to emerge from the the technical
community, I can wait :). <br>
<br>
Ian, the problem is, there is a complete paralysis and denial from
that side for a long long time now. WSIS for instance was 8 years
ago. And Snowden is the not the first thing that has happened since
to make people look critically at the status quo. <br>
<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F13B91627AB45FAAB89B5D73F9253E8@Toshiba"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR:
#000000">
<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
moz-do-not-send="true"
title="parminder@itforchange.net"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder</a>
</div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 08, 2013 6:10 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
</div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] "technical
community fails at multistakeholderism". really?</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> </div>
<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"><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
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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/" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>
</p>
<hr>
____________________________________________________________<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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>