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

[McTim]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> My last word in this process and I let you guys wrap up with whatever you
> wish. Promised! (It just happens that as I was at the hotel yesterdays and
> still am this early before I hit the road, I'm reading your discussions and
> try to respond as I can. But I will be starting the actual fieldwork in a
> couple of hours and will no longer bother you.)
>
> That sentence is obviously (at least it should be obvious to any attentive
> reader that it is) a theoretical construction, one that is based (at least
> in part) on hypotheticals in order to say, as Sala pointed out, what
> multi-stakeholder(ism) (M/S) is NOT.
>
> Has M/S ever been inter-governmental?
>

YES!



>  Not even a chance!
>

I consider all that happens in Geneva in re: IG an "inter-governmental" MS
model, in that the UN/ITU folks pay lip service to MSism, but the processes
are not truly open, transparent, consensus based, etc.



> Yet, we also say "We understand the M/S as distinct from the
> intergovernmental model" etc. I do understand the intergovernmental model
> exists, even if it anything but M/S. And you're saying On the other hand,
> beyond referring to and supporting M/S, the NTIA's announcement explicitly
> lists a number of I* organizations for ICANN to work with while it doesn't
> mention "civil society" not even once
>


In my view, true MSism has zero silos.  Everyone comes together without
labels to work together, so why mention silos if there shouldn't be any.
 That is more the Geneva style of MSism.




> and anything "governmental" is only mentioned to be excluded. So yes, some
> may say there is a risk to have a governance model led or dominated by such
> technical standards bodies, etc. BTW, when IETF develops standards (and we
> understand one has to have some technical expertise and ideas win based
> on..., well, technical merit, but) is there ever a point where there is a
> debate about societal implications of those standards?
>


yes



> If there ever was, are there other stakeholders involved than the same
> people who are conversant in technical standards development/specification
> and who actually developed the said standards?
>


yes, but not involved as in formal representation of Geneva style silos.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/001fffc5/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