[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sat Dec 28 19:08:53 UTC 2013
On 29/12/2013 02:26, William Drake wrote:
> Hi On Dec 28, 2013, at 4:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 27/12/2013 10:37, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>>> I don't think the use of the word "governance" implies in
>>> any way that governments will or should be involved.
>>> This is just a mis-impression.
>> It isn't implied, but stated as a fact, in the WSIS
>> definition of 'Internet governance.’
> Sorry Brian but not only is this not implied by the
> definition, the whole point of the definition was to say
> precisely the opposite.
Huh? The words (quoted here recently) were:
"Internet governance is the development and application by
Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their
respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules,
decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the
evolution and use of the Internet."
The very first player mentioned is Government, with capital G.
How that could be interpreted as its exact opposite defeats me.
I don't have any difficulty understanding the multistakeholder
model, but I was disputing Gregory's statement that 'I don't
think the use of the word "governance" implies in any way that
governments will or should be involved.' The WSIS definition is
quite explicit that governments should be involved.
More information about the discuss