[discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'

Shatan, Gregory S. GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Thu Apr 3 00:18:38 UTC 2014

Maybe I've said this already (and maybe more than once).   The MS model has been useful for and applied to policy development in the ICANN GNSO since well before I became involved in ICANN in 2007.  The GNSO's role is entirely policy development, it does not set technical standards.  In sum, the MS model is not some new untried "off-label" process for policy development.


-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 6:41 PM
To: 'S Moonesamy'; parminder at itforchange.net; 'Alejandro Pisanty'; discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'

No, I'm not arguing for that although I think it is a discussion very well worth having...

Rather I am trying to find out what people think is the extent of possible application of the MS model for policy decision making.  As I noted in my blogpost and in several interventions on this list there seems to be something of a sleight of hand going on, where the usefulness and application of the MS model in quite narrow technical areas as for example through the IETF provides a basis for applying the MS model in much broader areas of Global (Internet) Governance.

And I'm curious what advocates of the MS model think about that.


-----Original Message-----
From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+1net at elandsys.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 3:10 PM
To: michael gurstein; parminder at itforchange.net; Alejandro Pisanty; discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'

Hi Mike,
At 12:54 02-04-2014, michael gurstein wrote:
>So, is it the sense of this discussion that the items mentioned by
>Moonesamy below are the appropriate extent of application of the
>"multistakeholder model" for Global (Internet) Policy decision-making
>and that other strategies for organizing decision making processes are
>required in the other areas.

I commented about where some issues have been discussed or are being discussed.  The above is about something else; it is about decision making processes instead of where problems can be solved.

Are you arguing in the above (see quoted text) for having a Global Internet Policy body?

S. Moonesamy

discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org

                                                                * * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.

                                                                * * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
                                                                        Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00

More information about the discuss mailing list