[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG

Sat Dec 28 19:33:09 UTC 2013

Hi,

Yep, I had some trouble understanding that exchange.

Indeed in their role as 'representatives' of a group of citizens and 
residents who have local geographically determined interests, they are 
among the stakeholders.  Additionally as signatories to Human Rights 
covenants, they have committed to protect their citizen's human rights 
(without judging the degree to which this is proven more in the breech).

What is missing from the working* definition is any indication of a 
special sovereignty over the Internet for governments.  They only role 
they have in governing is as one of the stakeholders in areas in which 
they may some capabilities and responsibilities.

avri

* a working definition is one that is only a draft definition,  useful 
until it has been used, tested and perhaps revised to become a full 
definition.

On 28-Dec-13 14:08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.
>
>     Brian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>