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

Tue Oct 8 03:43:29 EDT 2013

Parminder, “truly substantial” is not the sort of words you include if you are producing a motherhood statement to appease the masses. I suspect that at least some of those present can see that things are changing, and they must change as well to retain any legitimacy.  I suspect that (just like us in civil society) there are some people now arguing forcibly for substantial change while others resist such moves.

Ian Peter

From: parminder 
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 6:10 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?

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 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
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/20131008/4cad8ee6/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