[governance] PINGO

Thu May 15 02:57:12 EDT 2014

While accepting your overall point Garth, I think in the specifics and
particularly for ICANN there would be the need to at least argue for, if not
demonstrate that the rules were in fact being "generated from within the
system".  A case could I believe (and has been made by some) that the rules
were in fact being generated for ICANN outside the system (by corporations
or specific governments) and then "laundered" through ICANN for
implementation. (I'm not arguing one way or the other, but I would think
that much of the discussion concerning ICANN's accountability or lack
thereof (and ultimately to whom it is or should be accountable) was
precisely around that point...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Garth Graham
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:53 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
Cc: JOSEFSSON Erik
Subject: Re: [governance] PINGO

I would like to underline that Kleinwächter is making a distinction in rule
making (i.e. in governance) between processes that are within the system,
and processes that are imposed from outside the system.  That distinction is
fundamental to understanding the principles governing the organization of
complex adaptive systems.  In effect, the processes of rule making in the
IETF, and the processes of policy making in ICANN that mirror them, are
governed by internal self-organization.  The correct way to view them is
as a beta test of the direction that rule making is taking in digital
culture.  To the degree that weve begun to supply a roadmap that
increases awareness of how such processes of rule making work, it is
perfectly natural for governments to resist them.  After all, there are no
governments that work that way now.

GG

On 2014-05-12, at 4:15 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
> yes, I think that RFC compliance falls into the "Open Standards" para. of
the NeMundial document (Principle 8). But as you know, RFCs are not legally
binding. Everybody can disregard RFC Standards (and to build an alternative
root) but it is in the self-interests of the provider and user of services
to follow RFCs to be "as interoperable as possible". So the checks and
baalances are within the system, not in external oversight bodies. And yes
it would make sense if MEPs understand the RFC culture. It could be a source
of inspiration how to innovate rule making in the Internet Age.
> 
> wolfgang
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von JOSEFSSON 
> Erik
> Gesendet: Mo 12.05.2014 04:25
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> Betreff: [governance] RE: PINGO
> 
> Dear Mr Kleinwächter,
> 
> Thanks for the instructions in your article's last paragraph on how to 
> use the NETmundial text! :-)
> 
> I wonder if RFC-compliance would fall within its OPEN STANDARDS paragraph?
> 
> <quote>
> OPEN STANDARDS
> Internet governance should promote open standards, informed by individual
and collective expertise and decisions made by rough consensus, that allow
for a global, interoperable, resilient, stable, decentralized, secure, and
interconnected network, available to all. Standards must be consistent with
human rights and allow development and innovation.
> </quote>
> 
> If so, would it be advisable to use the NETmundial statement to inform
public bodies like the European Parliament about RFC-compliance? As the EP
is providing email for us who work here, you could maybe argue that it
contributes to a widely used social network platform on the internet and
therefore, to some extent, contributes to "internet governance"?
> 
> Grateful for advice.
> 
> I ask because we're working on connecting the dots (as far as those dots
exist):
> 
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/parl-user/Week-of-Mon-2014050
> 5/000043.html 
> http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2014-May/000130.html
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> //Erik
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of "Kleinwächter, 
> Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: Sunday 11 May 2014 10:42
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] PINGO
> 
> Hi,
> 
> here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the
NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration.
> 
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_princi
> ples_on_internet_governance/
> 
> wolfgang

-------------- 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