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

[Adam Peake]

Hi Carlos,


On Oct 8, 2013, at 10:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:

> This sentence is ambiguous: "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."
> 
> It seems the "leaders" are more concerned by the revelations of surveillance than by surveillance itself.
> 


Jari Arkko, IETF chair replied to something similar on the IETF discuss list: 

> 
> From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>
> To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at nic.fr>
> Cc: ietf at ietf.org
> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 02:05:09 +0300
> > 
> > This wording is surprising. It looks like it is the revelations that
> > undermined confidence, and not the NSA actions. I would prefer
> > something like, to avoid shooting the messenger:
> 
> Of course :-) We meant that the loss of privacy causes concern, not the revelations.
> 
> Jari
> 

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg82863.html

Adam


> --c.a.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------
> C. A. Afonso
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 
> Date: 08-10-2013 02:51 (GMT-03:00) 
> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>,governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> Subject: Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? 
> 
> 
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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