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

[parminder]

On Tuesday 08 October 2013 12:13 PM, parminder wrote:
> Dear Ian
>
> **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. 

In fact four of them. I forgot to mention ISOC.

> 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/20131008/6f5e96e5/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