[governance] PINGO

Thu May 15 04:04:06 EDT 2014

Michael,

It would certainly help if you were to be precise about the specific issues and the specific path that the formulation of a rule took, to illustrate our point.

George

On May 15, 2014, at 9:57 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 we’ve 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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