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

Tue Oct 8 09:28:39 EDT 2013

Apart from redoing the question-wise compilation properly, i also asked 
Peter Major to in any case also separately provide complete responses of 
every responding entity, because often they make good sense to read as 
complete submissions. Peter has not responded to my suggestion. Maybe 
you and Joy can also add your voice... parminder

On Tuesday 08 October 2013 06:42 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> Nupef from BR alto endorsed APC's and Bestbits' responses and is not 
> listed.
>
>
>
>
> ------------
> C. A. Afonso
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> Date: 08-10-2013 05:42 (GMT-03:00)
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] "technical community fails at 
> multistakeholderism". really?
>
>
> Dear Parminder
>
> Thanks for picking up that the APC submission is not included in the 
> CSTD WG question compiliation.
> Also, the Best Bits submission, while there, is not noted as being 
> from Best Bits, it just mentioned a few of the endorsing institutions.
>
> I will write to them.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 08/10/2013 09:10, parminder wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131008/50494a3b/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