[governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?

Tue Oct 8 02:43:37 EDT 2013

Dear Ian

We should always work closely with all communities - and technical 
community is our engineers, we cant but work with them. However, I am 
not so convinced that the Montevideo statements means much, if anything 
at all..... We must place it in the context that, since the world is 
watching,  it is practically impossible for the so called defenders of 
the Internet to say absolutely nothing about the NSA affairs which has 
so badly wrecked public confidence in the Internet worldwide. The 
statement must, therefore, be evaluated on the criterion of whether it 
went beyond that was needed to basically manage public perception and 
discontent.... (BTW, it is  a pity that they shied away from mentioning 
NSA, or even the US, by name, a courtesy which I am sure wont be 
extended to another nation, seeing the extent of the crime.)

You say that the part "in truly substantial ways" makes the statement as 
really serious.... I would take it to be that - really serious - if they 
had but mentioned one clear instance of what would be such a "truly 
substantial way". Even if it was perhaps not possible for all the 
current signatories to sign off on any "real proposal" right away, can 
anyone here who comes close to being one among many representatives of 
the technical community propose an example of any such "truly 
substantial" change that technical community is now willing to consider, 
post NSA/ Snowden.

**Most importantly**, if indeed they really seek any "truly substantial" 
change/evolution of current mechanisms why did they not say so in their 
recent response to the questionnaire of the Working Group on Enhanced 
Cooperation, which inter alia asks them this precise question. In fact 
the question on the needed "most appropriate mechanisms" has a specific 
sub question on technical management aspect of global IG. At least three 
of the signatories to the Montevedio statement send their responses to 
the questionnaire - ICANN, ARIN and LACNIC. There is no indication at 
all in their responses to the questionnaire that they seek any "truly 
substantial" evolution anywhere. Everything of the status quo appears to 
them pretty all right.

In the circumstances, would one be amiss is considering this Montevideo 
statement as largely being merely for public consumption, while the 
views of the same organisations at places where such views really matter 
are rather different.

BTW, responses to WGEC questionaire can be seen at 
http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396 . 
Incidentally, IT for Change's responses are missing from the 
compilation. So also I think APC's, and therefore there may be even some 
more missing here.

parminder

On Tuesday 08 October 2013 11:21 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> Its interesting to contrast this article with the Montevideo statement 
> released a little bit later from the technical community. As regards 
> criticisms of current internet governance structures, the technical 
> community added
>
> " The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen and 
> evolve these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able to 
> address emerging issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet."
>
> Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text, but a 
> recognition that significant change must take place.
>
> Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were
>
>
> * They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet 
> operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national 
> level. They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust 
> and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of 
> pervasive monitoring and surveillance.
>
> *They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet 
> Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts 
> towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation.
>
> *They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA 
> functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including 
> all governments, participate on an equal footing.
>
> (there was also a statement re IPv6)
>
> I mention these in this context because there appears to be a lot of 
> common ground with the technical community now as regards some of the 
> big priorities that must be addressed, and from this statement also a 
> recognition that they must improve current mechanisms "in truly 
> substantial ways".
>
> That's good news!  There are things that should be criticised in 
> current structures, but there is a growing opportunity to work with 
> the technical community to address some major points of agreement. I 
> hope that in our discussions of the various viewpoints which 
> legitimately are part of our thinking on current structures we do not 
> lose the opportunity to work closely with the technical community on 
> some over riding policy issues on which we have substantial agreement.
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> .
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at 
> multistakeholderism". really?
>
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism 
>
>
> http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation 
>
>
> forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt agree 
> with emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of 
> multistakeholderism
>
> --srs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20131008/60305bac/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