<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>I have spent enough time on cybercrime issues to realize that multistakeholderism and the knocking down of silos is essential there. No stakeholder group acknowledges primacy as such across the board, but does defer to other stakeholder groups, and consults with them, where appropriate. And each stakeholder group takes the lead in actions clearly within their sphere of influence, while if possible acting as an enabler / facilitator for other for other fields.</div><div><br></div><div>Engaging with cyber criminals is, as you say, nonsense, but for example in spam filtering you would see the large email providers engage with the marketing industry to work out a code of practice where marketers can be educated so as not to engage in practices that are wholly inappropriate on email and social media where they may be accepted in paper junk mail.<br><br>--srs (iPad)</div><div><br>On 18-Mar-2014, at 0:45, "Ian Peter" <<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<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>Hi Suresh,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think we are a long way from a consensus here that multistakeholderism is
the one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance, and a number
of people have posted there reservations about that here.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Where there might be a rough consensus – and I hope so – is for
multistakeholderism to look after the IANA functions which are largely technical
and, despite over a decade of debate because of the iconic USG role, perfectly
suitable for management within the the technical organisations with
multistakeholder involvement in final authorisation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But I dont think you will ever convince me that multi-stakeholderism as
practiced in ICANN is a good model for cybercrime for instance, or that a
cyber-criminal stakeholder constituency should be established as part of
consensus decision making. Clearly there are some areas where greater
governmental involvement is necessary.</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><font size="3" face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<div style="font-color: black"><b>From:</b> <a title="suresh@hserus.net" href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net">Suresh Ramasubramanian</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:06 AM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="governance@lists.igcaucus.org" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a> ;
<a title="andrea@digitalpolicy.it" href="mailto:andrea@digitalpolicy.it">Andrea
Glorioso</a> </div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a title="kichango@gmail.com" href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com">Mawaki Chango</a> ; <a title="parminder@itforchange.net" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">Parminder</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in
response to the NTIA announcement of March 14</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>There is, for example, a broad consensus about multistakeholderism, I
hope?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Parminder, from his previous emails, seems to have some strong disagreement
with some aspects of MSism here.</div>
<div><br>--srs (iPad)</div>
<div><br>On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:30, Andrea Glorioso <<a href="mailto:andrea@digitalpolicy.it">andrea@digitalpolicy.it</a>>
wrote:<br><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p dir="ltr">Suresh,</p>
<p dir="ltr">I obviously have no intention to discuss the IGC statement, which
is none of my business; but for my own education, could you clarify what it is
precisely that the majority of civil society and other stakeholders (which
ones?) have agreed to?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sorry if I missed something. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Best, </p>
<p dir="ltr">Andrea</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mar 17, 2014 12:41 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian"
<<a href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net">suresh@hserus.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<div>Parminder, an understanding that you may not share or agree with does
not become any the less common because of that. Put another way,
it is what the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already
agreed upon, and these are things you have railed upon at length in the
past.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Protecting and encouraging minority views is fine - but when they are
diametrically opposed to the consensus and there is absolutely no attempt to
work towards the consensus, well - such encouragement can only go so
far.<br><br>--srs (iPad)</div>
<div><br>On 17-Mar-2014, at 16:55, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px">
<div><span style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px"><span style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px"><span style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">
<div>
<div><span style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px"><span style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px"><span style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(80,0,80)">Parminder,</div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(80,0,80)"> </div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(80,0,80)">Thanks
for the opportunity to
clarify.</div></span></span></span></div></div></span></span></span></div></span></div></div><br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><br><font face="Verdana">Mawaki<br><br>Thanks for this effort. <br><br>As often
and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable
multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless
we have some basic definition of what is meant here, and it
clearly excludes decision making on public policy issues...
</font></div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues
should be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever
their formal or theoretical definition (but based on our common
understanding or the meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we
use it in this Ig context.) </div></div></div></div></blockquote><br>Would
you please explain what that common understanding is.... Some of us have
been asking for such a formulation for really really long
now...<br><br>Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business
actors, nether self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society,
can have a 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' -
this role is only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and
their collectives through some formal political process or formations, how
much ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a
different strand of political work). I can further clarify my position if
needed.<br><br>While awaiting your formulation of the 'common
understanding', I think that those pushing the 'equal role for all
stakeholders' meme, want a business owner, or his rep, to be having a
similar role as someone coming from a formal political process - called
governments - in making actual decision making. THis is death of
democracy.<br><br>parminder <br><br>PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing
its limited technical and associated policy work in the manner that it
does at present.<br><br><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the
government or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may
have been so in some period in the history of human societies but that
may evolve? And if so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may
not necessarily be clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and
experimental at the beginning, and that it may be experimented in just
one or a few sectors before extending to other domains of
governance? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify
public policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to
really enforce them to the extent that those policies are really public.
But why public policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if
that's your position)? And developing policies isn't that part of
policymaking?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role
of the government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm
afraid to say that from my understanding of past discussions on this
list, that is unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go
back there again?</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Verdana">This
particular language should therefore be struck out.<br><br>Also, our
communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and
complimenting US gov for it, </font><font face="Verdana">should</font><font face="Verdana"> upfront say that we are
eager to know more details - especially about (1) whether it means
that ICANN would no longer be under any contractual obligations with
the US gov, and be in independent control of the root zone server, and
(2) what happens to the issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of
ICANN and it being subject to US laws and such and (3) whether any
conditions would be imposed in 'freeing ICANN' and if so, of what
nature.... </font></div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision
opened negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were
in a position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As
could be expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will
follow (no transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours
principles as guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a
transition proposal which should include the details of what will
follow. So I think apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test
they spelled out in the announcement, all your questions above can only
be answered in the transition proposal to be developed with our
participation and that of all other stakeholders. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mawaki</div>
<div><br> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Verdana">And that we
look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN, in a manner
that takes care of these issues..<br><br>Also, a minor point, about
one but last para, governance institutions do not have customers, only
constituencies and the such... <br><br>Thanks, parminder
<br><br><br></font>
<div>
<div>
<div>On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> </div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px">
<div><span style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px"><span style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px"><span style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">
<div>
<div><span style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px"><span style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px"><span style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(80,0,80)">Dear
All,</div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(80,0,80)"> </div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(80,0,80)">Please
find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering
the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with
same concerns.</div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(80,0,80)"> </div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(80,0,80)">We
would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.</div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(80,0,80)">---</div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(80,0,80)"> </div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(80,0,80)">IGC
Draft Press Release</div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(80,0,80)"> </div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(80,0,80)">
<p class="MsoNormal">On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced
its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far
with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
regarding key Internet domain name functions. As the
announcement points out, this marks the final phase of the
transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Internet Governance Caucus </p></div></span></span></span></div></div></span></span></span></div></span></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></body></html>