<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>India hasn't explicitly repudiated that proposal. They (and specifically Mr. Sibal) have only gone on to support something that is diametrically opposite to it, and strongly reaffirmed India's commitment to multi stakeholderism.</div><div><br></div><div>As for publicly repudiating a proposal - just a proposal mind you, not something actually signed or anything - made by one of their bureaucrats, why embarrass themselves by doing so, when it can be quietly buried and a much better proposal taken forward?</div><div><br></div><div>Same end result, thank God.<br><br>--srs (iPad)</div><div><br>On 06-Nov-2013, at 0:40, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 05 November 2013 07:27 PM,
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India,</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Just for factual correction.... CIRP was never repudiated by India.
the fact that they showed openness to engage with critical comments
cannot be held against them. If they did engage, one is saying they
have repudiated their earlier stand, if they hadnt engaged one would
call them closed and inflexible... Damned if you do, damned if you
dont. <br>
<br>
Essentially the same proposal is put forward by India in its WGEC
response - without the name though, and with an improvement of
separating the treatment of the 'oversight' issue which India now
wants to be seen separately from the mandate of the body which deals
with general public policy issues related to the Internet. So, the
Indian proposal for a new body for the latter purpose is still fully
current. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net" type="cite">
<div> no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian
bureaucrat.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It was government of India proposal with clearance from the highest
level, and all concerned ministries. Daily Mail, which has an overly
conservative image even in UK, isnt the most authoritative source of
Southern geo politics. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net" type="cite">
<div> And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd
make it viable even if India had not repudiated it.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Again, India never repudiated it.<br>
<br>
In any case, the main burden of my email is not that there is one
view on the subject, but that we need to begin a structured
discussion on the needed institutional frameworks.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net" type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison
with the ICCP is thankfully, moot.<br>
<br>
--srs (iPad)</div>
<div><br>
On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56
AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
color:#000000; font-size:10pt"><snip><br>
<br>
The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically
in stone by the end the year. Well not the end of the
year, say December 15. Whether by the coalition of the
willing, or others.<br>
<br>
Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and
other governments and oh yeah the telco elephants
definitely in the room have just 7 weeks to come up
with something sensible.<br>
<br>
So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic
of 2014 (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a
scary thing...) will accomplish anything substantive.
(quick! we need a photo op to ward of the wicked
plenipot)<br>
<br>
Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of
patching ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are
hearing: zero<br>
<br>
Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else'
ICANN-like orphan issues home of some coherence into
existence: zero <br>
<br>
(Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan
somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we could do
worse than starting with blowing up OECD's ICCP and
related processes to a global model in some mind meld
with ICANN as a the sugar daddy/cash machine to fund and
to offer prototypical msh processes for the
borrowing...but has anyone advocated that or anything in
particular else? Nope, didn't think so.) </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Lee,<br>
<br>
India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part,
is basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great
improvement over it, since the CIRP proposal outlines an
organic link of the new proposed 'policy development body'
with the IGF. In its latest submission to the WG on EC, India
has sought separate treatment of oversight and other public
policy issues, and therefore seem to indeed have removed the
I* oversight part from the proposed CIRP - which makes it
almost identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF linkage bonus. <br>
<br>
And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have
given a specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD
ICCP kind of global body, (2) deal with the
internationalisation of oversight issue separately through a
techno-political body with a very thin and clearly constrained
role, and (3) globally accept and formally recognise the
current distributed architecture of technical and logical
infrastructure related policy making and implementation
processes. <br>
<br>
In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians
have listed two key objectives for the proposed summit -
outlines of an global institutional framework, and some global
Internet related principles. <br>
<br>
I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global
institutional framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1)
Internet related public policy issues (which category has
been called as 'orphan issues' in some recent discussions),
(2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3) technical
and logical structure policy development and day to day
technical operations. <br>
<br>
And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin
with some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech as a good
starting point. <br>
<br>
We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over
procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil
summit initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new
non-gov stakeholders coalition, which also seeks to develop
substantive positions. We need to get pro-active, and produce
substantive positions towards the summit. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu" type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
color:#000000; font-size:10pt">And besides, since when
were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot matters?
Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or
Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the
last several decades, to realize what is really likely
to happen there. Or not.<br>
<br>
Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed
smell like a classic 'Summit' in the making, where the
main outcome is indeed the group hug/photo op. And a
press release.<br>
<br>
If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2
cents:<br>
<br>
forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on
the 1-2 page press release. <br>
<br>
Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming
out of this.<br>
<br>
Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can
boil down to say 5 bullet points what we want from the
summit, then we should say it. <br>
<br>
Rather than wasting time saying please may I
(participate, attend, whatever), let's just get to the
(5) points. Ok, could be 7, but remember if we are now
dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: deal with
it, and be very succinct.<br>
<br>
Lee<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000;
font-size:16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF134106" style="direction:ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
on behalf of David Cake [<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au">dave@difference.com.au</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
Milton L Mueller<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits
strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU" target="_blank">mueller@SYR.EDU</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;
font-size:medium; font-style:normal;
font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal;
orphans:2; text-indent:0px;
text-transform:none; white-space:normal;
widows:2; word-spacing:0px;
word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
font-size:10pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">On Thu,
Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake </span><span dir="ltr" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">dave@difference.com.au</a>></span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> wrote:</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;
border-left-width:1px;
border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);
border-left-style:solid; padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br>
<div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"></span>Everything
that Fadi etc have been saying says
that their primary motivation is to
avoid a multi-lateral government led
body for Internet governance, that the
ITU plenipot etc are forcing their
timing (in their opinion), and that
they are in a hurry to create a
multi-stakeholder process that can
stand as a clear alternative. And it
is clear that they have no idea what
exact form that will take, are very
keen to have buy in from CS or any
other group that will lend the effort
credibility and participate
constructively, and they are to a
large extent rushing things largely
due to circumstances/opportunity,
improvising as they go, and basically
dancing as fast as they can (and boy
can Fadi dance). <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> <br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
position:static; z-index:auto"> It is not
possible to be a more adamant opponent of
inter-governmental control of the internet
than me. However, I feel very suspicious
of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to
rally uncritical support for hasty and
often ill-considered responses. There was
a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived.
There was WCIT in 2012. There was no
serious attempt to take over the Internet,
and the final treaty that provoked so much
rejection was really not that bad. Now we
are told we have to get all scared again
and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about
fixing ICANN and the actual Internet
governance institutions, but to deal with
an extremely broad agenda merely in order
to pre-empt the ITU. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Fadi claimed to
have spoken to several government leaders (of
nations like South Korea) who had become more
inclined to multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the
additional impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG
feeling. The Montevideo statement and outreach to
Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong
feeling among the I* that the current political
climate is worse than in 2010, or even in 2012. I
can't say whether their impressions are correct,
but it does seem likely that they would strongly
reject the line of argument you are putting here. </div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>I don't think we
have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to
fix ICANN and other institutions. The
incorporation of a change in the IANA contract at
least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for
renegotiation, I would have thought. And good.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;
font-size:medium; font-style:normal;
font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal;
orphans:2; text-indent:0px;
text-transform:none; white-space:normal;
widows:2; word-spacing:0px;
word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
font-size:10pt">
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
position:static; z-index:auto"> And yet,
Brazil is basically defecting from the
pro-government coalition, the WCIT results
have made it clear that there is nothing
close to an international consensus on
inserting the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit
more sober and realistic about what is
happening? </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Well, sure -
but Fadi has more contact with government
leaders than I do, so if he says things are
substantially worse since WCIT, I have no reason
to doubt him either. </div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;
font-size:medium; font-style:normal;
font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal;
orphans:2; text-indent:0px;
text-transform:none; white-space:normal;
widows:2; word-spacing:0px;
word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
font-size:10pt">
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
position:static; z-index:auto"> More to
the point, why don't WE try to set the
agenda, instead of letting those who run
the I* institutions do so? Why are you
always reacting to their initiatives
instead of taking your own?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>We could have,
but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a
little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something
would emerge spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it
didn't and they perceived it as becoming urgent
they started the process themselves. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;
font-size:medium; font-style:normal;
font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
letter-spacing:normal; line-height:normal;
orphans:2; text-indent:0px;
text-transform:none; white-space:normal;
widows:2; word-spacing:0px;
word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
font-size:10pt">
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;
border-left-width:1px;
border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);
border-left-style:solid; padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div> </div>
<div>This isn't an ICANN centric
process. Yes, a renewed discussion
about IANA and ICANN accountability
can, and should, form part of that
discussion. I can assure others in
civil society that those of us
involved with ICANN (including Milton
and myself) are very keen to lead
critical discussions about ICANN
accountability. I find it very odd
over the last few days to be cast into
the role of defender of ICANN against
paranoia and misinformation - there
are quite enough valid reasons to
criticise ICANN (and the near allergic
reaction to the idea of real
accountability from parts of its
leadership are among them) without
making up conspiracies or
misrepresenting its processes. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> <br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
font-family:arial; font-size:small;
background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
position:static; z-index:auto"> I don't
see any paranoia or misinformation about
ICANN in my messages. I just see a
long-term understanding of how we need to
reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about
CS being used (again), and a determination
to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's
wonderful initiative. I do appreciate some
of the things Fadi has done. I just don't
think we need to be driven by fear. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Well,
you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory,
but I'll cede the point - my comments weren't aimed
at you specifically, as of course you do have strong
understanding of ICANNs processes, though you do
still seem to see this through a somewhat
ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is
likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing.
While an opportunity to discuss the IANA contract,
oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that really
doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what the
Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly
central role might have more to do with Fadi
personally choosing to push the process along.
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><br>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Regards</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>David</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br>
<span>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span><br>
<span>To be removed from the list, visit:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>For all other list information and functions, see:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a></span><br>
<span>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br><span>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:</span><br><span> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span><br><span>To be removed from the list, visit:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>For all other list information and functions, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a></span><br><span>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>