<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 Wednesday 04 February 2015 03:43 PM,
William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:67DFC256-448E-419A-9D1B-48695A806778@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div apple-content-edited="true" class="">Hi Parminder
</div>
<div apple-content-edited="true" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div apple-content-edited="true" class="">Just to clarify,</div>
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Feb 4, 2015, at 10:27 AM, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" class="">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size:
18px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;" class="">Bill, you mention a
range of issues, which are of a very different nature on
the technical to social-political spectrum, and will
therefore require different appropriate decision making
mechanisms. I dont think it is good to mix them to make a
point in favour of one kind of governance structure over
another.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br
style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 18px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform:
none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
<br style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 18px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 18px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;" class="">I for instance am
happy with the existing CIR governance system if it is put
in an appropriate relationship with a rules based and
arms- length political oversight system, which is globally
democratic, in being representative -political. On the
other hand, I cannot see how issues of e-commerce can be
decided by any system other than which is directly
political -democratic- representative . The requirements
of decision- making about global e-commerce are very
different from those of say numbers allocation. </span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">For e-commerce there are a mix of governance
mechanisms at the various non-national levels, i.e. regional,
transnational, pluriliateral, multilateral. Some are strictly
intergovernmental like the WTO, UNCITRAL or UNIDROIT; some are
intergovernmental with some bounded forms of stakeholder
participation like OECD and the EC;</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
I see no contradiction between what you say and my statements. Yes,
these above are all inter gov decision making systems, because they
deal with core economic-social-political aspects of e-commerce. The
rest below that you mention deal with the more technical aspects of
e-com, and can appropriately have expertise based structures. We
indeed agree here. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:67DFC256-448E-419A-9D1B-48695A806778@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class=""> some are multistakeholder like OASIS; some are
purely industry like GS1/EPCglobal, EDIFICE, etc etc. It’s a
mix, depending on the the issues/functions involved and how
broadly/narrowly you want to construe "e-commerce.” My point
was that a lot of the detailed operational stuff on standards,
authentication, and contracting etc., especially for B2B, is
nongovernmental, and a priori it’s not obvious exactly where
that could or should change.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Agree. As I said in my email, I dont think it is necessary to change
governance structures related to technical and operational issues
even if they are of multistakeholder or private sector kind. These
may be the most appropriate ones for the subject under
consideration. I only said that: <br>
<br>
(1) For those Internet related public policy issues that are of a
core social-political nature we need inter gov systems with
appropriate stakeholder consultative participation (as in OECD/ EC
that you refer to above). <br>
<br>
And <br>
<br>
(2) For technical/ operational decision making, any conflict or
interface with issues of public policy nature will require special
rules-based arms-length political oversight systems of some kind. <br>
<br>
The question is whether you agree with these two propositions or
not.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:67DFC256-448E-419A-9D1B-48695A806778@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Best</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Bill</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>