[governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14

Suresh Ramasubramanian suresh at hserus.net
Mon Mar 17 20:32:30 EDT 2014 

I have spent enough time on cybercrime issues to realize that multistakeholderism and the knocking down of silos is essential there.  No stakeholder group acknowledges primacy as such across the board, but does defer to other stakeholder groups, and consults with them, where appropriate. And each stakeholder group takes the lead in actions clearly within their sphere of influence, while if possible acting as an enabler / facilitator for other for other fields.

Engaging with cyber criminals is, as you say, nonsense, but for example in spam filtering you would see the large email providers engage with the marketing industry to work out a code of practice where marketers can be educated so as not to engage in practices that are wholly inappropriate on email and social media where they may be accepted in paper junk mail.

--srs (iPad)

> On 18-Mar-2014, at 0:45, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Suresh,
>  
> I think we are a long way from a consensus here that multistakeholderism is the one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance, and a number of people have posted there reservations about that here.
>  
> Where there might be a rough consensus – and I hope so – is for multistakeholderism to look after the IANA functions which are largely technical and, despite over a decade of debate because of the iconic USG role, perfectly suitable for management within the the technical organisations with multistakeholder involvement in final authorisation.
>  
> But I dont think you will ever convince me that multi-stakeholderism as practiced in ICANN is a good model for cybercrime for instance, or that a cyber-criminal stakeholder constituency should be established as part of consensus decision making. Clearly there are some areas where greater governmental involvement is necessary.
>  
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:06 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Andrea Glorioso
> Cc: Mawaki Chango ; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14
>  
> There is, for example, a broad consensus about multistakeholderism, I hope?
>  
> Parminder, from his previous emails, seems to have some strong disagreement with some aspects of MSism here.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:30, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>> 
>> Suresh,
>> 
>> I obviously have no intention to discuss the IGC statement, which is none of my business; but for my own education, could you clarify what it is precisely that the majority of civil society and other stakeholders (which ones?) have agreed to?
>> 
>> Sorry if I missed something.
>> 
>> Best, 
>> 
>> Andrea
>> 
>>> On Mar 17, 2014 12:41 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>> Parminder, an understanding that you may not share or agree with does not become any the less common because of that.   Put another way, it is what the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already agreed upon, and these are things you have railed upon at length in the past.
>>>  
>>> Protecting and encouraging minority views is fine - but when they are diametrically opposed to the consensus and there is absolutely no attempt to work towards the consensus, well - such encouragement can only go so far.
>>> 
>>> --srs (iPad)
>>> 
>>>> On 17-Mar-2014, at 16:55, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>> Parminder,
>>>>>  
>>>>> Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mawaki
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for this effort. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes decision making on public policy issues...
>>>>>  
>>>>> I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues should be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their formal or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or the meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig context.)
>>>> 
>>>> Would you please explain what that common understanding is.... Some of us have been asking for such a formulation for really really long now...
>>>> 
>>>> Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors, nether self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have a 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their collectives through some formal political process or formations, how much ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different strand of political work). I can further clarify my position if needed.
>>>> 
>>>> While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding', I think that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme, want a business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone coming from a formal political process - called governments - in making actual decision making. THis is death of democracy.
>>>> 
>>>> parminder 
>>>> 
>>>> PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and associated policy work in the manner that it does at present.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have been so in some period in the history of human societies but that may evolve? And if so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not necessarily be clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and experimental at the beginning, and that it may be experimented in just one or a few sectors before extending to other domains of governance? 
>>>>>  
>>>>> I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really enforce them to the extent that those policies are really public. But why public policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's your position)? And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?
>>>>>  
>>>>> If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm afraid to say that from my understanding of past discussions on this list, that is unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go back there again?
>>>>>  
>>>>>> This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to know more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would no longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing ICANN' and if so, of what nature....
>>>>>  
>>>>> Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could be expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow (no transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours principles as guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition proposal which should include the details of what will follow. So I think apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in the announcement, all your questions above can only be answered in the transition proposal to be developed with our participation and that of all other stakeholders. 
>>>>>  
>>>>> Mawaki
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>>> And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN, in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do not have customers, only constituencies and the such... 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks, parminder 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same concerns.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> IGC Draft Press Release
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/5028683b/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