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

Fri Nov 30 12:26:28 EST 2012

Cool…

(Suresh, you also must have me mixed up with someone else… I just did a quick check and the only time that the interesting terminology of "hegemony" has been used on this list in the recent past (as far back as my Outlook search would go--was by Milton in a somewhat barbed jibe at some comments that were made I believe by a third party although his comments were directed at me.  As for " plurilteralism", I'm presuming that you mean "plurilateralism".. again my handy search engine couldn't find any use of term at all on this list by anyone…

Suresh,  As a matter of fact, I think those below are both interesting examples of cases where some form of global management/governance is required--the question is how to get there, where to do this and who gets to be involved in the decision making processes at various stages in the process… I'll leave both of those specific areas to folks with the appropriate expertise and interest--both as proponents and as critics/advocates and of course that is where a workable multistakeholder structure within a legitimized global decision making framework (or frameworks) comes into play.

Alejandro, I have immense respect for the folks who built the Internet (one of the most -- perhaps the most -- significant technical achievements in modern times) and whose intellectual and technical skills and determination maintain it in its current form.  However, the very success of the Internet --it's becoming a (and very soon "the") fundamental platform for life in the 21st century--has meant that it no longer (can or should) belong to those who created it or even those who (technically) sustain it… It is too important for everyone globally for that position to prevail.  So, IMHO we are presented with a huge huge challenge--that unfortunately current campaigns like "Hands off the Internet" don't do much to help resolve… 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.

I don't have answers to those questions but I'm hoping that once the current smoke/fog clears that reasonable folks will set about dealing with them.

Best,

M  

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:20 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127

You tell me which of the two international organisations .. ITU or Interpol .. is going to be a better bet for, say cybercrime

Both under the Vienna convention, so ..

And then say an issue with the .tw ccTLD.  After a previous history of chicanery that took away taiwan's IDD code 866. left it without one for several years, got a new (reserved) one. 886,allocated, and later quietly changed to being listed as belonging to Taiwan, China.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/10/05/2003484569/1

Now, if that sort of accident starts happening to say .tw, or to the asn of some Taiwanese ISP ..

You are welcome to rail against US hegemony, "plurilteralism" (what a mouthful!) or whatever, but believe it or not, they have a long way to go, even with countries on their OFAC blacklist like Cuba and Syria, before this sort of mendacious accident happens to say .cu

;; ANSWER SECTION:

cu.                     3600    IN      NS      ns2.ceniai.net.cu.

cu.                     3600    IN      NS      rip.psg.com.

cu.                     3600    IN      NS      ns.ceniai.net.cu.

cu.                     3600    IN      NS      cu.cctld.authdns.ripe.net.

cu.                     3600    IN      NS      ns2.gip.net.

cu.                     3600    IN      NS      ns.dns.br.

Or .sy, which has at least one authoritative ns still around and served by ripe, for all that the el Assad government decided to take their country off the net altogether.

--srs (iPad)

On 30-Nov-2012, at 21:30, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Huh? I'm curious what you see as a "massive ad hominem attack"… that I see the simultaneous, dare I say somewhat hypocritical blustering against Internet regulation and governance alongside a quite reasonable recognition that some governance and regulation is required; and then pointing out that reasonable people can disagree on what the nature of the issues being governed and regulated might be (and the appropriate venue as to where that governance/regulation might take place);  and then rather humbly (I would say) suggesting that perhaps rather than mobilizing the millions in a crusade against what might seem to be paper tigers/windmills, perhaps some of the same resources might go into figuring a rather more globally equitable way of determining which of those governance/regulatory issues should be addressed and in what venue(s) is somehow a personal attack on anyone rather escapes me… but maybe you have me mixed up with someone else in the demon pool…

M

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 7:18 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob
Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127

Michael (Gurstein), 

I am really stunned by the turn your latest messages have taken. It would seem that you have directed a massive ad-hominem argument (attack?) on a large group of people who not only don't get paid but actually sacrifice better paid jobs and put their own day jobs on the line - sometimes also pay out of pocket and don't get a lot of love at home - for the promotion and, when needed, defense of values of the Internet. 

Many - I tend to include myself in this list - have a very clear approach to the situations when their views and action coincide with those of corporations, governments, and even non-commercial organizations whose views and funding do not align in other issue areas. 

To your statement about supporting or not "regulation." Maybe it is useful to go back to the WGIG's list of issues and find out if among the 40 or so there is something missing that has become important today. You'll see there a variety of levels of "regulation" and/or of governmental intervention, both happening now and desirable or denounced as undesirable. 

People like McTim and Suresh have expressed themselves over the years about many of these, with expertise and knowledge. Your pass at them seems totally ungrounded. Unless you actually meant someone else and meant to exclude them from your sweeping statement. 

Riaz, same applies, IMO.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

! !! !!! !!!!

NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO

+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD 

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO 

SMS +525541444475 
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 

  _____  

Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com]
Enviado el: viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2012 06:37
Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Asunto: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127

Michael

The function of arguing against regulation and then making "piece meal" adjustments as "necessary" (which is a commodious term) is not as innocuous as it seems. From the 3 prong list earlier in this thread, there is a clear "position" (as stated) and "interest" (the reason, purpose, etc) and this is how the "game" is played.

It is not innocuous because this frames the debate in the "free markets are better" mold. Now the global financial crisis was facilitated (if not caused) by this type of thinking - in a sector most susceptible to oversight... 

It is of course a different matter, when those who argue for "hands off" and then "hands on" (exceptionally or otherwise), if one seeks to be in two places at once. But with a battalion of corporate funded ideogogues backing this view up, I guess it passes some sort of muster.... Perhaps people are playing the "game", but perhaps not...

Riaz

On 2012/11/28 09:31 PM, michael gurstein wrote:

McTim, it seems to me that you (and others) argue long and hard against management/regulation of the Internet except (as in this case) when you don't.

And then having accepted the (obvious) need for some sort of management/regulation of at least certain aspects of the Internet why you (etc.) should expect that others (the rest of the world for example) should accept your definition of what those "exceptions" should be and where they should (or rather should not) be adjudicated leaves me a bit puzzled.

M

From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:30 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Ian Peter; Ginger Paque
Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways i.e. vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off the Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if only implicitly) on the other. 

I'm only trying to have it one way.   I feel gov'ts have far too much control over what we say and do online.  I don't want an intergovernmental body setting global Internet policy.

I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of course, any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if one doesn't like a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an appropriate (globally acceptable) alternative venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) position seems to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many.

Accepting #2 which as I have said before is the current status quo does not mean that one accepts the need for further global Internet Governance mechanisms.

I do not find #3 acceptable.

I've been singing the same song for years, what is it that you don't understand about my position?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

____________________________________________________________
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/20121130/0f622dc4/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