[governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening speakers

[parminder]

On Thursday 29 October 2015 07:26 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> Well done, David! 
> And in particular your point that 

Too much here seems to be hanging on one point that I do not understand
what is a p2p technical architecture :). Even though I have said that I
did know it, and I would expect people to take such a statement at face
value. I keep hoping that this Northern project of building the capacity
of ignorant people in the South would have some expiry date somewhere,
but it does not seem to.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 	Confusing the technical and economic and institutional architectures
>> like this is a problem, because it leads to confusing the roles of the bodies that
>> regulate the various levels.
> ...is especially important. 

This point is rather more substantial. However, still an allegation of a
'confusion' that I do not have. In fact, I myself insist that we do not
use technical governance to leverage political solutions, and also, as
importantly, if not more, not take simplistic and essentialist technical
stances in areas that are essentially political, like the area of
centralisation or decentralisation of power and control over the
Internet essentially is.

It is rather more frustrating when technical actors, or worse, political
actors expediently taking a technical cover, insist on some things being
'technical facts' when the issue is really political. In this I agree
with the above assertion that we should avoid confusion about the role
of bodies that regulate at various levels. There is today too much of
'technical' intrusions in Internet related public policy matters, a lot
of which serves to defend and legitimise status quoist
political-economic positions and advantages. For instance, I have a long
history on this list, as elsewhere, advocating that we avoid exporting
models of governance that may be suitable in the technical space to the
political, or Internet related public policy, space. ICANN is a great
advocate of such an export, the Net Mundial Initiative being expressly
that. Even ISOC recently advocated that Internet related public policy
issues be addressed taking lessons from how technical bodies like the
IETF work. This, David, I am sure, you would take these as instances of
what " leads to confusing the roles of the bodies that regulate the
various levels".

parminder

>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151030/2310927c/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