[governance] IGC Statement in response to NTIA's announced intent to relinquish role in IANA functions

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Accidentally replied just to Sala.

--srs (iPad)

> On 21-Mar-2014, at 7:18, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Suresh. You should also tell the entire list, will make the final changes and perhaps you can comment on the revision then.
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> Perfect. Thanks.
>> 
>>> On 21 March 2014 7:02:25 am "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Given that multistakeholder is taken to include and mean the presence of civil society, private sector and governments. 
>>> Ok so shall we edit the phrase and make it positive instead of "negative".
>>> 
>>> "We understand the mulch-stakeholder governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well as from a model that exclusively accommodates technical standards setting groups."
>>> 
>>> Suggested revised phrase and replacement.
>>> 
>>> The multistakeholder governance model should include civil society, private sector and public sector.
>>> 
>>> What are your thoughts?
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>> Yes, the point mctim makes is that there is no such 'governance by technical standards groups'. Deleting it does not take away their being a stakeholder.
>>>> 
>>>>> On 21 March 2014 6:42:59 am "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "We understand the multi-stakeholder governance model as distinct from the "inter-governmental" model, from the private sector led model, as well as from a model that exclusively accommodates technical standards setting groups."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Suresh and McTim - Suresh I note your suggestion to delete it. Perhaps we can find some other way to say this. The current phrase attempts to describe what "multistakeholder is not". 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I would just suggest deleting it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 21 March 2014 6:28:36 am "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Why do we need this last phrase?  Is there a "model that exclusively
>>>>>>>> accommodates technical standards setting groups."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I have never noticed this in the previous drafts, if I had noticed i
>>>>>>>> would have objected.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [Sala: I did not initiate that particular phrase. I just took it from the existing text and made revisions to the various aspects of the text. do you have another way of phrasing it or a suggestion so that we can wrap this up?]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In the inclusive spirit of an authentic Multistakeholder model, we
>>>>>>>> > stand ready to work with all stakeholders and make sure effective
>>>>>>>> > consideration is given to the concerns and views of Internet users, citizens
>>>>>>>> > and civil society organizations across the world.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >  We support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide IANA and the
>>>>>>>> > global Internet community in the formulation of a transition proposal. It is
>>>>>>>> > critical that we continue to strive for openness and global availability of
>>>>>>>> > the Internet while continuously improving on its security and at the same
>>>>>>>> > time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all Internet users around
>>>>>>>> > the globe.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I don't see how the transition will preserve and further cilvil
>>>>>>>> liberties, but it's just a nit, not an objection.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The rest is fine by me.
>>>>>>> [Sala: Noted] 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > The IGC urges the international community and the global Internet community
>>>>>>>> > to give particular attention to the cost structure associated with the
>>>>>>>> > emerging governance framework so as to make effective participation
>>>>>>>> > affordable for developing nations and related Internet stakeholders.
>>>>>>>> > Capacity development initiatives outreach and are also critical in improving
>>>>>>>> > access and enabling meaningful participation.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >  Finally, the Internet Governance Caucus expresses hope that the
>>>>>>>> > globalization of the IANA function will eventually become more complete with
>>>>>>>> > an internationally appropriate and neutral machinery and that suitable and
>>>>>>>> > effective accountability and transparency mechanisms will be established for
>>>>>>>> > the new global Internet governance institution.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > March 21, 2014.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> McTim
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/68fa8b99/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