AW: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel)

[McTim]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:53 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 23 April 2013 10:04 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:
>
> First of all, the link provided is not the link to the 1200 pages report,
> but to the 48 pages “executive summary”.
>
>
>
> As to the questions about the multistakeholder nature:
>
>
>
> ·        The composition of the Internet Enquete Commission was 17
> parliamentarians and 17 members from different stakeholder groups, so this
> was a multistakeholder commission.
>
>
> Peter,
>
>  (Parminder) 17 members not from other stakeholder groups, but 'experts'
> nominated by political parties in proportion of their strength in the
> parliament, right! For instance, no industry representative here. Are you
> now ready to consider inclusion of 'experts' selected by politicians as
> enough to make things multi-stakeholder? If so, I can tell you that UN has
> endless number of committee consisting of such experts, doing very important
> work.
>
>
>
>
> ·        The Internet Enquete Commission has employed a number of innovative
> online participation options giving citizens the chance to directly
> contribute and comment on the proceedings.
>
>
>
> Regarding Internet Governance:
>
>
>
> The most relevant detailed report about International Issues and Internet
> Governance is here: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf
>
>
>
> The recommendation of this report is to keep the established governance
> framework and to protect the freedom and open character of the Internet. To
> assure the government is kept abreast of changes, there shall be a regular
> monitoring and reports. Multistakeholder participation in national and
> international governance issues shall be further strengthened. There shall
> be no new governmental or intergovernmental Internet Governance institutions
> as long as the existing institutions maintain the current way of an open and
> free Internet. The Commission is of the opinion that the current US
> oversight should yield to a broader supervisory structure for ICANN and IANA
>
>
> (Parminder) Exactly the demand of most developing countries, not a penny
> more... Only, countries like India have gone further beyond generic
> statements and suggested what such a broad supervisory structure could look
> like. We, as in IT for Change, have tried to present some structural
> possibilities and trigger a debate here in the IGC. But coming from the
> Southern side, all that looks like so explosive, betrayal and so on.....

It's not North vs South, it's intergovernmental vs zero-governmental.

-- 
Cheers,

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

-------------- 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