[governance] Response to Jeremy's insinuations (was Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony...)

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800
> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> 
>> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
>> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!
> 
> Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them, like I
> have given a link to my proposal? ( http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)

If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up on.  Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/).  For a less academic, higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to NETmundial (http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under Creative Commons at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401- surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg. http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing-iana/) count for anything?

If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can expect news about another effort to produce something like this in the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon and I'm not going to steal its thunder.

Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real point, right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically legitimate.  So let's not muddy the water with false issues.

I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it has been going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly be said between us on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm starting to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list mails with a link to that.  For now, if there is anything that you think you don't already have a response to, write to me off list and I'll point you to it.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en


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