<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><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 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; 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><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Bill</div></body></html>