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

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Oct 8 03:55:37 EDT 2013 

On Tuesday 08 October 2013 01:13 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> 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.

Maybe. If you want me to wait, say six months, for a 'truly substantial' 
proposal for change to emerge from the the technical community, I can 
wait :).

Ian, the problem is, there is a complete paralysis and denial from that 
side for a long long time now. WSIS for instance was 8 years ago. And 
Snowden is the not the first thing that has happened since to make 
people look critically at the status quo.


parminder
> Ian Peter
> *From:* parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 08, 2013 6:10 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto: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/20131008/6f7e9b8f/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