[discuss] IGF (new thread emerging from Brazil meeting preparation).

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Mon Jan 27 18:52:09 UTC 2014


I would have to take some issue with the concept that the IGF is dead as 
noted in the quoted article.  Much like Mark Twain the reports of its 
death are greatly exaggerated.  The IGF still provides a useful function 
- that which is was founded for- open dialog as a path to understanding 
and consensus across stakeholders; dialog unconstrained by negotiated 
text, which is the burden of so many other existing organizations.  
Dialog which may help create clearer understanding of issues so that 
other fora may build upon such enhance understanding and perhaps nascent 
consensus.  All of us have  experienced the quality of dialog in 
organizations with textual outcomes.  It is a negotiation from start to 
finish that does not lend itself to developing understanding or 
discovering the breadth of possible consensus.

The IG debates in all fora succumb to an issue that 1Net is grappling 
with now - the idea that all things can be solved by one big global 
policy jamboree.  I don't disagree with the breadth of issues of 
concern, only with the concept that there could be one forum, one uber 
mutlistakeholder organization that can address them all.  For issues to 
be addressed properly there is the need to join the appropriate 
decision-makers to the exercise; absent that, we are talking amongst 
ourselves.  Many of these fora that attract these decision-makers will 
likely not have this equal stakeholder process or representation.  That 
is the importance of the IGF dialog; to develop inputs and consensus 
understanding that can help move the process in those organizations in 
the correct direction. That is the importance of local and regional IGFs 
to create more inclusive discussions and help bring issues to the IGF 
and understanding back from IGF.  This is the process we should continue 
to improve.  There are panels at IGF about topical issues as well as 
related to capacity building.  Part of the improvement process should be 
to make sure that those panels are as relevant as possible to evolving 
and existing issues and that there are ways to take learning from those 
panels back home.



On 1/27/2014 1:14 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
> + 1
> JCN. You hit the bull's-eye.
> - - -
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:17 PM, JCN Global 
> <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net 
> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>     Milton,
>     Sorry for it took me bit longer than expected to come back to you,
>     following your last email. I was not so interested to go into your
>     last comment, and your great knowledgeof French culture and History.
>     I think one of the challenges we are all facing now is: TRUST. I
>     do blame the US for getting the level of Trust over IG debate to a
>     minus-zero level, and feel like it is still time to deconstruct a
>     narrative that is now fully out of scope and concern.
>     Contrary to the idea of a disjunction and or a subset of
>     ICANN/IANA functions away from the US DoC, I do believe that what
>     is most need is a supreme international body to which stakeholders
>     can turn themselves to in order to have any claim brought to a
>     truly independent body. I am more interested to see how a 'Law of
>     the Internet' can be taken care of by such a body. Detaching the
>     DoC from ICANN is indeed what is of present concern. But refusing
>     to take International law, as the right way to get all national
>     authorities signatures at the bottom of an international treaty,
>     is so unthinkable that I do believe the status-quoers are fully
>     aware of what they are doing to oppose any change. I do not see
>     how any 'Equal Footing' empty principle could ever bring a
>     government to sign such a treaty. You have been refusing this for
>     years. It is no longer a sustainable position. And I do suspect
>     that you know it.
>     But, as I wrote first, my primary concern is about TRUST.
>     Therefore, I have no other choice than to denounce the
>     multistakeholder fluff and its empty ideas.
>     That is the sense of my last HuffPost. It has nothing to do with
>     what you characterized as US-phobic view. I have way too many
>     friends in the US, honest, brilliant and so kind, that I can only
>     regret the way Internet Governance and its asymmetric situation
>     have driven you guys out of your mind.
>       The Asymmetrics, the WEF, ICANN, Brazil, and the 'Little Red
>       Book' of Multistakeholderism
>     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/the-asymmetrics-the-wef-i_b_4654438.html
>     JC
>     Le 10 janv. 2014 à 23:24, Milton L Mueller a écrit :
>>     >Or do you feel so badly that the United States Department of
>>     Commerce, and other
>>     >acronyms needed a Professor of your standing to come to their rescue.
>>     You can ask the Department of Commerce about me coming to their
>>     rescue. I am not sure they view me as their savior.
>>     If you don't like the US role, would it not be more constructive
>>     to make a specific proposals regarding how to detach the
>>     Department of Commerce from ICANN and the IANA contract? (as some
>>     of us have been advocating for years). If you don't do this,
>>     would it be fair to conclude that you are more interested in
>>     public displays and posturing than in actually making things better?
>>     Are there any specific reform proposals to be found floating
>>     amongst the rhetorical perorations? Try communicating those and
>>     see if you get a better reception.
>>     Some of us do find your neo-DeGaullist Americo-phobic expressions
>>     quite entertaining, even riotously comical at times, but we read
>>     the list for other purposes.
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140127/79fadb28/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list