<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 29 October 2015 07:26 PM,
Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BN1PR07MB232E71DD9BCCD58220D68C0A1200@BN1PR07MB232.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Well done, David!
And in particular your point that </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Too much here seems to be hanging on one point that I do not
understand what is a p2p technical architecture :). Even though I
have said that I did know it, and I would expect people to take such
a statement at face value. I keep hoping that this Northern project
of building the capacity of ignorant people in the South would have
some expiry date somewhere, but it does not seem to. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BN1PR07MB232E71DD9BCCD58220D68C0A1200@BN1PR07MB232.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
Confusing the technical and economic and institutional architectures
like this is a problem, because it leads to confusing the roles of the bodies that
regulate the various levels.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
...is especially important. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
This point is rather more substantial. However, still an allegation
of a 'confusion' that I do not have. In fact, I myself insist that
we do not use technical governance to leverage political solutions,
and also, as importantly, if not more, not take simplistic and
essentialist technical stances in areas that are essentially
political, like the area of centralisation or decentralisation of
power and control over the Internet essentially is. <br>
<br>
It is rather more frustrating when technical actors, or worse,
political actors expediently taking a technical cover, insist on
some things being 'technical facts' when the issue is really
political. In this I agree with the above assertion that we should
avoid confusion about the role of bodies that regulate at various
levels. There is today too much of 'technical' intrusions in
Internet related public policy matters, a lot of which serves to
defend and legitimise status quoist political-economic positions and
advantages. For instance, I have a long history on this list, as
elsewhere, advocating that we avoid exporting models of governance
that may be suitable in the technical space to the political, or
Internet related public policy, space. ICANN is a great advocate of
such an export, the Net Mundial Initiative being expressly that.
Even ISOC recently advocated that Internet related public policy
issues be addressed taking lessons from how technical bodies like
the IETF work. This, David, I am sure, you would take these as
instances of what " leads to confusing the roles of the bodies that
regulate the various levels".<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BN1PR07MB232E71DD9BCCD58220D68C0A1200@BN1PR07MB232.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>