[governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Oct 8 03:10:42 EDT 2013
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list