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

Ginger Paque gpaque at gmail.com
Tue Nov 27 19:32:19 EST 2012 

:)
I didn't say I wanted #1... I said we have to push hard for #1...
With the aim of arriving at a tolerable version of #2...


Ginger (Virginia) Paque

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
Diplo Foundation
Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
www.diplomacy.edu/ig
**
**



On 27 November 2012 18:16, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Disagree with Ginger (that doesnt happen often!)
>
> no regulation of the internet period means to me
>
> * large corporations control what happens via market power
> * paypal can suspend all payments to wikileaks or whoever offends their
> sensibilities with no ramifications or checks and balances and political
> judgements of corporations can determine access
> * paedophilia, hate mail etc are completely unchecked
> * cybercrime is OK
> * all governments can act unilaterally to block sites according to
> whatever power they can exert on either corporations or their local ISP
> industry.
>
> Frankly, to me this is a horror scenario.
>
> But where I do agree with Ginger is aiming for a tolerable version of #2.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>  *From:* Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:06 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael gurstein<gurstein at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> ; Michael Kende<Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance]
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127
>
> I think we have to push hard for #1, and hope we get a tolerable version
> of #2.
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
> Diplo Foundation
> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> **
> **
>
>
>
> On 27 November 2012 17:45, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  But surely that is the point of civil society, not to be a cheer leader
>> for the status quo but rather to push governments and others towards their
>> higher angels.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> M****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> *From:* Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:10 PM
>> *To:* gurstein at gmail.com; 'Michael Kende'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance]
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> 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<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<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<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 <%2B44%20845%20600%205244>. Email
>> enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit
>> www.analysysmason.com
>>
>> _____  ****
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121127/205061ae/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

More information about the Governance mailing list