[bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot?

[genekimmelman at gmail.com]

Thanks Michael,  your response raises the very issue I hope Best Bits can resolve (for itself,  at least). I have the impression that many,  although striving for a more just world,  accept geo-political realities and seek opportunities to promote policy as they seek to alter those constraints. Others are more focused on getting the processes/modalities right from the get go,  doubting the potential for much incremental progress within current structures.  Maybe Best Bits should, (not exclusively,  but generally) pick one if these approaches. Then another coalition could focus on the other,  and we can attempt to align their work when posssble?

-------- Original message --------
From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> 
Date:  
To: 'Gene Kimmelman' <genekimmelman at gmail.com> 
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: RE: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? 
 
While agreeing in general with your statement below Gene I think this
discussion cannot be separated from a discussion of appropriate potential
modalities for implementation of such an agenda. One of the things that has
become very clear to me over the course of the last round of discussion is
that there seems to be a clear division between those who focus on outcomes
and those for whom a concern with the framework of the delivery of those
outcomes seems to be paramount.

To be specific, some in our grouping are for example focussed on Human
Rights and the Internet however that might be ensured; while others have
articulated such a deep suspicion of the possible role and influence of the
State (whether all States or just some is not clear) that they insist that
any initiative in support of Human Rights and the Internet must necessarily
be framed in a non-State supported framework i.e. where the only support for
Human Rights (as an example) can come through the dominance of
multistakeholder processes.

My feeling is that this division is irresolveable.

To add a brief observation, we know from Snowden that the subversion of
Multistakeholderism by the NSA has gone to the very heart of Intenet
development through its actions around standard setting in the IETF (and the
IETF and the other technical  agencies have responded in the only manner
possible i.e. the Montevideo Declaration). It is thus hard to understand the
almost religious advocacy of MSism by some without a counterveiling
recognition of the need to provide an appropriate governance framework of
accountabllity and transparency for MSism.  Associated with this is the
further need to anchor this MSism governance in some sort of framework of
international norms and statutes which can only come through multilateral
processes in which of course, there should necessarily be the broadest base
of particiaption by those most immediately impacted.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene Kimmelman
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:43 AM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot?

This back and forth conversation has been very interesting.  The only thing
I have to add is that I believe we should try to keep all options open as
possible paths forward, and as Anja has been suggesting focus in Bali on
what our substantive demands are from policymakers and the corporate sector.
I don't believe it is useful to guess motives of various players, but
instead take advantage of possible opportunities and develop a more robust
CS agenda.  The forum (or fora) for resolving our demands may be more clear
over time, as these various initiatives unfold.
On Oct 14, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I think understanding this relies on your view of NTIA intentions.
> 
> None of us can know those, but we all guess at them based on all sorts of
evidence, theories and assorted perspectives.
> 
> If you tend to think that NTIA wants to hold or even increase its
influence, you assume one thing - that this had to be done against their
will or advice and that it is a slap in the face to US goals.
> 
> If you assume that NTIA really wants to divest control in a sane and safe
manner to multistakeholder modeled governance, while seeing the Internet
remain open, you assume another.
> 
> I assume the latter.
> 
> The NTIA is not the NSA, like most governments, outside of dictatorships,
there is no agreement in the goals of the various departments.  NSA's goals
are not NTIA's goals.
> 
> I tend to believe in NTIA's commitment and support for the wider multi
stakeholder model of Internet governance.   So yeah, them being somehow "in
the mix" seems about right to me.
> 
> In other words, and to join in the prevailing marriage metaphor, I think
the US and ICANN have an open marriage.
> 
> And speaking of metaphors, and of shooting people in the foot, I think we
should encourage the new directions and their initiators especially when
they are multi stakeholder in intent, taking into account that they are new
directions and still largely aspirational.  I think this is the case for
Civil Society both inside of Brazil and inside of ICANN, as well as the
fragments of International Civil Society that gather in BestBits.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 14 Oct 2013, at 01:37, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> Hi 
>> 
>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:17 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé <joao.caribe at me.com>
wrote:
>> 
>>> I really can't understand how NTIA could be behind Fadi's meeting in
Brasilia.
>> 
>> Not behind, but in the mix.  
>> 
>> Bill
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131014/f9a612f9/attachment.htm>