[NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014

[Eduardo Bertoni]

Thanks Caro for the info.

 Query: Is Everton the higher rank governmental official attending on
behalf of Brazil, or Brazil is planning to send a bigger delegation?

Thanks

Eduardo


On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> I just want to take the opportunity share with you
>
> http://oti.newamerica.net/blogposts/2013/internet_and_statecraft_brazil_and_the_future_of_internet_governance-93553
>
> And let you know that Everton Lucero (
> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/everton-lucero/0/448/920) will be here
> representing Brazil at IGF and (Brazilians hope) moving forward :-)
>
> C
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:45 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>wrote:
>
>> Perhaps of interest
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>> *Subject: **Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff &
>> Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014*
>> *Date: *October 19, 2013 9:36:14 AM GMT+08:00
>> *To: *Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU>
>> *Cc: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>
>> Hi Milton
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2013, at 1:09 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Therefore, I do not agree with more ambitious agendas - or at least, the
>> more ambitious issues might be discussed, but only if we are able to
>> develop and apply a workable solution to the more immediate and simpler
>> problem (ICANN)
>>
>>
>> There's two problems with this.  First, Dilma wants to talk about a
>> broader agenda, and many other governments have said the same for years in
>> different ways.  Second, Fadi and the coalition he's coordinating with
>> wants to talk about a broader agenda.  Both sides have made that clear
>> recently, and are unlikely to be persuaded to the contrary ex ante by blogs
>> etc.  Maybe if efforts to discuss the broader issues——the holes in the gov
>> architecture that CS has been noting since 2003—hit a road block they'll
>> collapse back to something narrowly focused on ICANN, but I wouldn't
>> presume it a this point.
>>
>> We're all in blue skies guessing land as to where this will go, and
>> absent clear info a number of folks have been projecting their preferred
>> narratives onto the space.  So I will too.  I start from the assumption we
>> should listen to what the powers that be have been saying for quite some
>> time.  And what I've heard for quite some time now, is
>>
>> 1. A change in the AoC that removes or alters the USG roles to be at best
>> a 'first among equals' in some sense, with greater encouragement to the GAC
>> to step up.  This has been US policy, so its adoption is not quite "the
>> world turns its back on USG" and so.  Question of timing and
>> dynamics—Snowden revelations obviously accelerated things in a wild card
>> way that was not envisioned or desired.
>>
>> 2. A parallel change to the USG role in the IANA contract cutting ICANN
>> looser and spinning toward GAC oversight.
>>
>> 3.  Consideration of some sort of new multistakeholder process for
>> orphaned issues etc.  This could prove the hardest, as one assumes G77 and
>> China will still want a UN basis, which wouldn't be congenial to I-orgs et
>> al.
>>
>> The first two pieces are easy enough to imagine, although they will be
>> difficult for the USG to sell domestically.  Obama hardly needs the Tea
>> Party and libertarian/conservative think tanks running around
>> hyperventilating about him being the "man who gave away the Internet" at
>> this moment, especially before the mid-term elections.  And there'd have to
>> be a lot of hand holding viz. Versign and other contracted parties, major
>> corporate users, US agencies, and nervous allies, to assure them nothing's
>> seriously changed re: stability and security.
>>
>> The third one's anyone's guess.  No new IGOs has been the mantra.  CSTD
>> is obviously too feeble to be of any use.  So something else that can pass
>> muster with governments—?  And obviously, there can't be ICANN mission
>> creep here, although there will probably be Fadi creep…ICANN will have to
>> be a supportive partner in some manner.  I'd have preferred appending a
>> working group mechanism to the IGF to strengthen its' role, but a lot of
>> people remain fixed on preserving its pristine status as a dialogue space
>> full stop given the no-membership problem etc.
>>
>> There's also talk, e.g. Dilma, about some new multilateral overlay on
>> certain issues.  That too would run into standard UN divisions unless it's
>> a pretty generic statement of principles.  This could make Wolfgang's Focus
>> Session on Principles, as well as the first FC led by Brazil, particularly
>> interesting.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Carolina Rossini*
> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131019/86b61b7a/attachment.htm>