[governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127

[Riaz K Tayob]

Thanks for being a voice of reason on this John - imho.

This is a remarkable summary of what is needed in practice.

So just a few bon mots...
On 2012/12/01 12:15 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:26 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> That challenge is to find a way that we all globally, can allow the 
>> Internet to fulfill the possibilities for all of us that it presents 
>> (and in ways that are meaningful to all of us in our global 
>> diversity) -- and that means finding a way to reconcile sometimes 
>> extremely divergent interests and perspectives concerning for 
>> example, what issues are important/necessary to resolve and where 
>> they can be resolved and who/how should be involved in resolving them.
>
> Agreed.
>
> The challenge is that the Internet is truly a global system, and we 
> lack good mechanisms
> for development of true agreement on public policy issues when applied 
> to a global scope.
> There are some feedback loops which operate reasonable well in the 
> context of a single
> country. (For example, the response of consumers, and civil society 
> on their behalf, to
> "bad" decisions by businesses with respect to privacy results in 
> lots of attention, and
> sometimes even results changes to the errant business practices.)
>

There are mechanisms that can deal with this, but there are some truly 
crazy muppets out there, who despite their politeness are rather 
disruptive (think single rooters! or multiple rooters whatever your 
predilection) to debate. It matters not a wit that even in a non-binding 
multistakeholder format that CIR can be discussed without the 
cacacophony of obsequious ICANNers! And this sets a tone for 
engagement... that is robust "American" like it is at the IETF, except 
of course if one tries to give as good as one gets...

So I think there needs to be some greater balance (even in a recent post 
I was accused of ad hominem attacks - a discussion that promptly went 
substantive, belying the aspersion cast). There really do need to be 
some voices that manage the complexity of what we face. I had suggested 
that perhaps those that have legitimacy concerns about be consulted more 
in civil lists/orgs like this so that their voices are still heard, and 
not completely marginalised. Even that is a tall order... so much for 
inclusiveness, eh? Not that it is anyone's job in particular to pick up 
this "job", I mention it merely that it is indicative of the fact that 
the very important matter of participation by some elements falls 
between the stools; even in the context where the clarion call is to 
participate.

> In an ideal world, there would be a way to encourage productive 
> discussion of the various
> public policy principles that should be applicable to Internet 
> communications on a global
> scope, and such discussions would multistakeholder in nature, open in 
> participation, and
> transparent in the processes used to reach outcomes (there is a little 
> bit of a challenge in
> accomplishing such, since making the final determinations of what is 
> appropriate public
> policy is one of areas that has been considered the realm of 
> governments, and yet we are
> collectively unsure if that model continues to work in our new highly 
> connected world)

This is brilliant. And idealist we must be. However, as MSG discussions 
have shown, corporates seem to benefit more than public interest groups. 
While arguable, like the issue above, it tends to fall between the 
stools. And let us be clear, there is very little balance in these types 
of discussions. Corporates are making decisions, and standard terms of 
contracts, privacy agreements etc are being plastically written all the 
time, so there needs to be some balance in the contest of vested 
interests...



> If we could produce clear statements of public policy principles, and 
> the statements were
> made known to existing Internet governance institutions, then they 
> would quite likely be
> considered in development of the various technical standards and 
> policies that we need
> to keep the Internet running.  Likewise, if folks working on such 
> standards and policies
> took significant measures to keep governments and civil society aware 
> of the ongoing
> developments, it would help in avoiding conflicts between Internet 
> practices and the
> globally accepted principles in any given public policy area.

Here I agree. There is a lot the IGC has done and a great deal more it 
can do. But I think what is needed is more tolerance of intellectual 
diversity - so that interests can be better understood. It is trite to 
mention that whenever public interest is mentioned in policy, one should 
look out for the vested interest. I suggest that this vigilence be 
heightened here as the robust engagements (and some would say 
politically incorrect) allow for a sharpening of differences as much as 
bridging...

I do wish you would contribute more...

>
> /John
>
> p.s.  Disclaimers apply.  My views alone.  Use of this email may 
> trigger visions and/or
> produce delusions, paranoia, and schizophrenia-like symptoms.  Use 
> sparingly and
> seek appropriate medical treatment as needed.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121204/4ea9501c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t