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

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Of course you will have to expect that not all proposals submitted will be driven by pure altruism. 

Narrower interests... Protectionism, politics, whatever else will inform several proposals. 

And you can't rely on the major players being purely driven by altruism, I'm afraid. 

--srs (htc one x)


----- Reply message -----
From: "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
To: "'Michael Kende'" <Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com>, <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127
Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 2:26 AM


Hi Michael,

 

We can do some thought experiments around what option #2 would look like as
for example, to deal with the issues of global/natonal security on the
Internet but at the end of the day my guess is that it would look rather
like a UN agency except one that had been updated from 19th century modes of
operation (and assumptions about appropriate structures of governance) to
ones more reflective of 21st century modes/assumptions and technology.

 

How we get from here to there is of course, a challenge but if the major
players are in fact operating in good faith with an overarching concern for
the health and well being of the Internet infrastructure as a global public
good rather than pursuing narrow national or commercial interests then
developing a suitable set of mechanisms shouldn't be impossible.

 

And you are right about "incumbents"--I was of course referring to dominant
Internet players rather than telco incumbents.

 

Best,

 

Mike

 

From: Michael Kende [mailto:Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:20 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Lee W McKnight'
Subject: RE: [governance]
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320
121127

 

Michael,

 

What would #2 look like?  Who would be responsible, what jurisdiction would
they have, what hole would they fill?   I think it is possible to prefer 1
over 3 even if you might prefer #2 to emerge, but there is no broadly
articulated alternative, so what would you propose?

 

Michael


PS since a number of commercial incumbents are in fact behind one of the
proposals to add Internet issues to the ITRs, I do not think your last
statement is strictly accurate.

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:03 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Lee W McKnight'
Subject: RE: [governance]
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320
121127

 

I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the
WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall
into:

                1. no regulation of the Internet period

                2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in
certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU

                3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue
areas by the ITU

 

It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come
from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they
have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2
(based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community)
to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and
#3.

 

That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the
current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course purely
accidental.

 

M

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance]
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320
121127

 

In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT.




  _____  

This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to
our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. 

Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered
office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number
05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit
www.analysysmason.com 

  _____  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121128/1c2a04e6/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