[discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is globalized? (:-)
Naresh Ajwani
ajwaninaresh at gmail.com
Thu Mar 13 08:13:01 UTC 2014
Alejandro,
"1. let's take an example from a developing country. How would an ISP -
let's imagine, Sify, in India - get to influence IP address numbering and
domain name policy? In APNIC, the NRO, and ICANN, the company did mighty
well. There was a Naresh Ajwani in the NRO and in APNIC, a President of the
company on the ICANN Board. Pretty mighty outreach and it was early
times....."
While I am sure that your intent is not to intimidate me :-), as certainly
there would be life on 1net after these deliberations... :-), I would be
more glad if you could let me know which outreach program brought Naresh
Ajwani in the NRO. I also clarify that the referred to so called
developing country has over 950 million telephone subscribers, majority
with internet enablement, and sooner or later, would represent over 30% of
total internet population of the world :-). In my opinion, this is doing
mighty well.
"2. more than a middle path what we are seeing is a combination of all
paths that prove productive while compatible with most principle-based
frameworks. The sum - not the substraction that is implied in getting to
the middle - is more powerful and provides for another important principle
that has made the Internet open, inclusive and resilient: evolvability."
Once again, I bow...middle path is a combination of all paths. Having said
that, I have not seen enough evidence of evolvability for all
inclusiveness. Here again, I bring my concern on outreach programs - as to
assume that internet is limited to the existing framework -constituencies
itself shows that outreach programs are not effective.
Regards & best wishes,
Naresh Ajwani
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com>wrote:
> Naresh,
>
> 1. let's take an example from a developing country. How would an ISP -
> let's imagine, Sify, in India - get to influence IP address numbering and
> domain name policy? In APNIC, the NRO, and ICANN, the company did mighty
> well. There was a Naresh Ajwani in the NRO and in APNIC, a President of the
> company on the ICANN Board. Pretty mighty outreach and it was early times.
>
> To effect the same through non-multistakeholder mechanisms they would have
> had to intensely lobby a government, make active use of a pretty
> non-transparent revolving door with the regulator or ministries involved,
> then managed to get through there to the Foreign Office and the Permanent
> Mission in Geneva as well as the one in the UN in NY, government backing
> and representation also in the ITU, etc., right? Just one simple case. Call
> it but an existence proof if you woke up mathematically inclined.
>
> For updates on the outreach program is it possible that you could do a
> quick search on the proceedings of the latest ICANN meetings?? I understand
> that the latest stats are being prepared for the ICANN meeting in Singapore
> in a few days. As for the IGF, their registration stats are open. One can
> see there several thousand individuals and organizations which have had a
> say and an influence and which would have found closed doors in the
> traditional non-multistakeholder mechanisms.
>
> 2. more than a middle path what we are seeing is a combination of all
> paths that prove productive while compatible with most principle-based
> frameworks. The sum - not the substraction that is implied in getting to
> the middle - is more powerful and provides for another important principle
> that has made the Internet open, inclusive and resilient: evolvability.
>
> Yours,
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Naresh Ajwani <ajwaninaresh at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Alejendaro,
>>
>> " ICANN has in motion several complementary outreach programs to increase
>> participation, diversity and inclusion...."
>>
>> "Motherhood-and-applepie" statements are always liked but here specifics
>> that can address concerns would help more: how many new constituencies have
>> been added, especially since emerging economies started becoming important
>> stakeholders of internet.
>>
>> At the cost of being more challenging, please educate me on empowerment
>> and not on patronizing.
>>
>> "... The balance between the methods of both evolves in a complementary
>> way, enriched by diversity......"
>>
>> I bow. Need for a middle path is the call.
>>
>> Regards & best wishes
>>
>> Naresh Ajwani
>> On 13 Mar 2014 08:15, "Alejandro Pisanty" <apisanty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Naresh,
>>>
>>> ICANN has in motion several complementary outreach programs to increase
>>> participation, diversity and inclusion. So do several other organizations.
>>> The statement that these do not exist is counterfactual.
>>>
>>> As for inclusion and multistakeholderism: if you look at the published
>>> statistics of ICANN participation and those of the IGF, you will notice
>>> that many otherwise disadvantaged or frankly excluded individuals and
>>> organizations have had a voice and influenced decisions over the years,
>>> which would not have had any access to them had they constrained themselves
>>> to in-country mechanisms. Slowly these too have adapte in many countries.
>>>
>>> Multistakehodlerism is not predicated ex-ante as a way to solve problems
>>> and make progress on the Internet and its governance. it is the way these
>>> were built. It was not built against democracy but as one more of the ways
>>> of democracy. Many contrapositions of multistakeholder processes against
>>> democracy are flawed by either a narrow choice of definitions of democracy
>>> or an insufficient view of how the two are complementary. The balance
>>> between the methods of both evolves in a complementary way, enriched by
>>> diversity and facilitated by the loose coupling that gives the Internet its
>>> remarkable resilience against most threat models known to date.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>> Alejandro Pisanty
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Naresh Ajwani <ajwaninaresh at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Greg for the elaborative response. Frankly, it has raised yet
>>>> more queries, may be because of my firm belief in all inclusiveness and no
>>>> spiritless processes.
>>>>
>>>> "..... In a sense, the best protection for a potential "minority view"
>>>> is not to end up as a minority view, but rather to end up influencing the
>>>> consensus so that it resembles that view to the extent possible, with the
>>>> result that the consensus is thus acceptable to the group holding what
>>>> might otherwise have been a minority view....."
>>>>
>>>> To the best of my experience, especially in case of sensitive issues,
>>>> such spirit is lacking. Be that as it may, you would appreciate that even
>>>> in your explained ideal environment, the processes are at the most blending
>>>> minorty views but not protecting them and that itself, in my view is
>>>> against multistakeholderism. It is a known fact that every stakeholder
>>>> isn't entitled to same equity and justifiably because internet commenced
>>>> from one corner of the world.
>>>>
>>>> "....... This is not to dismiss the issue of underrepresentation in
>>>> ICANN or any other entity, or to be blind to the idea that underrepresented
>>>> groups may have viewpoints that are underrepresented or not represented at
>>>> all (even as "minority views")......."
>>>>
>>>> Your comments have further strengthened my concern over lack of all
>>>> inclusiveness and despite its acceptance for long, there is no outreach
>>>> program to expand the existing stakeholders group. It also raises a
>>>> question on the existing stakeholders who, now advocating msism vs
>>>> multilateralism, seemed to be not bothered at the right time or till the
>>>> global pressure has been built to this extent.
>>>>
>>>> In brief, for any global institutionalization, all multi
>>>> issues-language to culture, shud be given their due position and, if in
>>>> minority, a protection on their concerns as their right.
>>>>
>>>> Regards & best wishes
>>>>
>>>> Naresh Ajwani
>>>> On 12 Mar 2014 12:00, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan at reedsmith.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Naresh:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Here are my thoughts on and understanding of the process.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I think the "protection" of first resort for any viewpoint is the
>>>> consensus process itself. In a GNSO Working Group (WG), the process of
>>>> exploration, deliberation, persuasion and negotiation is fairly deliberate
>>>> and painstaking. The consensus that emerges from the process is often not
>>>> the position that any group or groups held coming into the WG, but rather a
>>>> synthesis of views as a result of the process. The ideal consensus result
>>>> is full consensus, and most if not all parties in the consensus process
>>>> need to move off their initial positions to build consensus (full or
>>>> rough). All the parties in the WG participate in defining the consensus,
>>>> whether they end up signing on to it or not. So the goal of any group is
>>>> to move the consensus toward one's own position, while (ideally) moving
>>>> one's own position toward the emerging consensus. In a sense, the best
>>>> protection for a potential "minority view" is not to end up as a minority
>>>> view, but rather to end up influencing the consensus so that it resembles
>>>> that view to the extent possible, with the result that the consensus is
>>>> thus acceptable to the group holding what might otherwise have been a
>>>> minority view.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > if after the consensus process, a Consensus forms but there are still
>>>> parties that disagree with the Consensus, they are entitled to submit a
>>>> Minority View, which becomes part of the Preliminary Report of the Working
>>>> Group (WG), which is put out for public comment. Public comments would
>>>> typically be submitted by stakeholders in the Minority View position and
>>>> those who agree with the Minority View (as well as comments from many
>>>> other viewpoints). The WG will review and consider the comments, which
>>>> may cause the WG to consider revising the consensus if the comments contain
>>>> new facts or persuasive argument. The WG then produces a final report
>>>> which is again put up for public comment. The comments are again reviewed
>>>> and changes may be made at this point as well. The final report is then
>>>> submitted by the Working Group to the GNSO Council, which reviews the final
>>>> report (including the minority view(s)) in considering the recommendations
>>>> made by the WG. The minority views might persuade the Council to reject or
>>>> modify a recommendation. The recommendations approved by the GNSO Council
>>>> are passed on to the ICANN Board, which will adopt the recommendations as
>>>> policy unless voted down by a supermajority vote.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > At this point, I don't think it is an issue of "ensuring the rights
>>>> of minorities." The group holding the minority view may not be a
>>>> "minority" in a sense of the word other than that they supported the losing
>>>> arguments. Any group can hold a "minority view." For any given
>>>> recommendation, the minority view might be held by the business community,
>>>> IP interests, civil society, registrars or registries (or there may be no
>>>> minority view at all). If a group's view is not adopted by the larger
>>>> group as a policy recommendation after everything above, that's basically
>>>> the end of the story in terms of policy development (though as noted above,
>>>> the view of the larger group will likely have changed due to that party's
>>>> participation in the process). The next "protection" will be participating
>>>> in implementation oversight to ensure that implementation does not depart
>>>> from policy (at least not in a way that Is detrimental to that group's
>>>> interests).
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > As far as the question of "minority representation" goes, I am not
>>>> entirely clear what you are referencing. At the beginning of the process
>>>> there are no minorities, in the sense of those holding views different from
>>>> the majority - simply because no majority has really formed yet. In a
>>>> sense, every stakeholder group is a minority of one. Certainly, there may
>>>> be groups that are closer to each other in viewpoint, but they may or may
>>>> not form any kind of majority.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > If what you are referring to are "minorities" in a geographic,
>>>> national, cultural or ethnic sense, that's a whole different set of
>>>> questions and answers, that really has little to do with the issue of
>>>> holding (or potentially holding a "minority view" in the consensus
>>>> process. This is not to dismiss the issue of underrepresentation in ICANN
>>>> or any other entity, or to be blind to the idea that underrepresented
>>>> groups may have viewpoints that are underrepresented or not represented at
>>>> all (even as "minority views"). Those are real issues - just not the same
>>>> issue as how a party in a consensus process can make sure that the result
>>>> of that process resembles their view as closely as possible. It's also
>>>> worth noting that similar views may be held by groups or individuals with
>>>> widely varied geographic, national, cultural and ethnic backgrounds,
>>>> whether or not some might be considered "minorities" in some sense of the
>>>> word and others not. Indeed, one of the valuable results of the consensus
>>>> process is to discuss and commingle viewpoints among disparate actors and
>>>> to arrive at a greater understanding or ideally a common viewpoint at the
>>>> end of the process.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Greg Shatan
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:ajwaninaresh at gmail.com]
>>>> > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 9:57 PM
>>>> > To: Shatan, Gregory S.
>>>> > Cc: George Sadowsky; michael gurstein; discuss at 1net.org
>>>> >
>>>> > Subject: Re: [discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is
>>>> globalized? (:-)
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Dear Greg,
>>>> >
>>>> > ".......So, there is no such thing as a "veto" by any particular
>>>> party - if they are in the opposition, they are entitled to submit a
>>>> Minority View, but they are not entitled to stop a Consensus from being
>>>> formed...."
>>>> >
>>>> > Would you please let us know that how this process addresses minority
>>>> representation?
>>>> >
>>>> > U wud appreciate that democracy is not only about majority or so
>>>> explained consensus but ensuring the rights of minorities too.
>>>> >
>>>> > Regards & best wishes
>>>> >
>>>> > Naresh Ajwani
>>>> >
>>>> > On 11 Mar 2014 22:10, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan at reedsmith.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > <snip>
>>>> >
>>>> > And I'm not sure what a Mulstatkeholderist approach can contribute
>>>> here. I don't see that a "consensus" position is either possible nor
>>>> necessarily desirable--what kind of consensus position could a Google sign
>>>> on to in the case I've just pointed. I for one wouldn't particularly want
>>>> the range of options to be considered in the political/policy forum to be
>>>> subject to a veto by Google as would presumably be required by a MSist
>>>> approach with consensus outputs. Similarly even entering into the MSist
>>>> context would to my mind be disempowering in an instance such as this given
>>>> the depth of resources--human, financial, political/influential which a
>>>> Google could toss at the issue and which would in an enforced MSist (and
>>>> regrettably it seems in the broader political contexts as well), be
>>>> effectively and practically overwhelming.
>>>> >
>>>> > <snip>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Michael:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Actually, your presumptions are incorrect. This is not how
>>>> multistakeholderism and consensus actually works, at least not within the
>>>> ICANN GNSO.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > First, "consensus" in that context (among others) is actually what
>>>> some others call "rough consensus." The GNSO operates under levels of
>>>> consensus (termed Full Consensus (unanimity), Consensus (some opposition),
>>>> Strong Support But Significant Opposition, and Divergence (no prevailing
>>>> view)). So, there is no such thing as a "veto" by any particular party -
>>>> if they are in the opposition, they are entitled to submit a Minority View,
>>>> but they are not entitled to stop a Consensus from being formed.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Second, the primary level on which multistakeholder
>>>> consensus-building takes place is the "stakeholder representative" level,
>>>> not the self-interested individual level. While there can certainly be
>>>> "self-interest" involved, individuals who look out for the needs of their
>>>> employer rather than the stakeholders they represent tend to get
>>>> "disciplined" by the process (by other reps of the same stakeholder group,
>>>> by the stakeholder group generally, and even by representatives of other
>>>> stakeholder groups who are protecting the integrity of the process).
>>>> Someone who is clearly advancing an entity position tends to get push-back.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Third, the multistakeholder process tends to blunt perceived
>>>> advantages based on purported "depth of resources." When business, IP,
>>>> ISP, registrar, registry, civil society, ALAC, nonprofit, etc.,
>>>> representatives get on a call or in a room, the process of stating
>>>> positions, discussion, negotiation and attempts to develop consensus
>>>> (and/or minority views) is really quite equal - a civil society rep from
>>>> Morocco has just much of an opportunity to shape the discussion as an ISP
>>>> rep from Virginia. Resources (beyond travel budgets) really don't get you
>>>> all that much in the MS process. (They may get you more in working around
>>>> the MS process, which is an argument to strengthen MSism, not to weaken
>>>> it.) Frankly, having been involved in ICANN for a few years, I think that
>>>> there is little truth to the idea that private sector companies generally
>>>> throw vast resources at ICANN matters. Entities for which domain names and
>>>> the domain name business are central may devote resources to ICANN matters,
>>>> but for the private sector generally, this area gets little attention and
>>>> few resources.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Given the above, the multistakeholder approach is actually incredibly
>>>> empowering. As a participant in a number of ICANN working groups, I've
>>>> been incredibly impressed by the work ethic, intelligence, mutual respect,
>>>> ability to air and influence views and consensus-building energy that is
>>>> the hallmark of multistakeholderism done well. The multistakeholder
>>>> approach, in concert with transparency and accountability, actually acts a
>>>> "check and balance" system, making it difficult for any one stakeholder
>>>> group's positions to dominate, much less the positions of a single
>>>> stakeholder. I think it's the best hope for the voice of disparate groups
>>>> to influence policy and practice.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I would urge you to familiarize yourself more with
>>>> multistakeholderism in practice at ICANN (and elsewhere) before you jump to
>>>> conclusions about its application.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Greg Shatan
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of michael gurstein
>>>> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 5:04 PM
>>>> > To: 'George Sadowsky'; discuss at 1net.org
>>>> > Subject: Re: [discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is
>>>> globalized? (:-)
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > George,
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > A problem with this approach to the "social" is that it fails to
>>>> recognize that many/most/all of the issues which would fall into the
>>>> "social" layer (and many of those associated with these in other layers as
>>>> well) are essentially "political" issues i.e. ones where there are
>>>> significant differences not simply of (technical or other) opinion (or
>>>> which could be easily resolvable through some sort of consensus building
>>>> process). Rather they are issues where there is a distinct
>>>> difference/conflict of values/norms/interests which ultimately have to do
>>>> with power and who controls a situation sufficiently to determine how
>>>> rewards/benefits/outcomes are distributed.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > More or less subtle attempts to "depoliticize" these issues is in
>>>> fact an attempt to divert attention away from the very real clash of
>>>> interests in these areas. Is my digital identity something that belongs to
>>>> me along with all of the data that accrues to that identity or is it a
>>>> "profile" that belongs to Google where they can use that as a basis to
>>>> slice and dice all the attributable data and then sell it on as a means to
>>>> manage/manipulate/market me in the digital marketplace? This isn't a
>>>> "technical" question (nor a "social" question whatever that could be)
>>>> rather it is a "political" question which could become the basis for
>>>> mobilization, political organizing, political contestation (one can presume
>>>> that Google et al will not want their "ownership" of my digital identity to
>>>> be transferred back to me) and ultimately clashes of political opinion out
>>>> of which policy would emerge where the (monopoly) power of the State would
>>>> of necessity be used to enforce the distribution/redistribution of
>>>> benefits/determination of relative positions and so on. .
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > And I'm not sure what a Mulstatkeholderist approach can contribute
>>>> here. I don't see that a "consensus" position is either possible nor
>>>> necessarily desirable--what kind of consensus position could a Google sign
>>>> on to in the case I've just pointed. I for one wouldn't particularly want
>>>> the range of options to be considered in the political/policy forum to be
>>>> subject to a veto by Google as would presumably be required by a MSist
>>>> approach with consensus outputs. Similarly even entering into the MSist
>>>> context would to my mind be disempowering in an instance such as this given
>>>> the depth of resources--human, financial, political/influential which a
>>>> Google could toss at the issue and which would in an enforced MSist (and
>>>> regrettably it seems in the broader political contexts as well), be
>>>> effectively and practically overwhelming.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Mike
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of George Sadowsky
>>>> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 10:37 AM
>>>> > To: discuss at 1net.org List
>>>> > Subject: [discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is
>>>> globalized? (:-)
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > All,
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Purpose: What topics in Internet governance should 1net focus upon?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Discussion on this list has focused heavily on the future of IANA, as
>>>> well as on human rights issues. Those are certainly appropriate topics for
>>>> the Brazil meeting, but if 1net is to have a longer life, then there may
>>>> well be other topics included in Internet governance that do merit
>>>> attention.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Context
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I'd like to talk about this more after introducing a couple of
>>>> diagrams and some text from a publication forthcoming in I/S: A Journal of
>>>> Law and Policy for the Information Society (www.is-journal.org) It
>>>> is titled "Internet governance is out Shared Responsibility," by Vint Cerf,
>>>> {Patrick Ryan, and Max Senges. I take the following from a draft version
>>>> of the paper, subject to final edits. In my view, it's an excellent paper
>>>> and should be read by anyone involved in Internet governance discussions.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Among other things, the authors propose a layering of issues in
>>>> Internet governance according to their relative position between strictly
>>>> technical and strictly social. A number of such models have been proposed.
>>>> One proposed earlier on this list by Brian Carpenter, and augmented by a
>>>> set of his slides, was an extremely good and thorough exposition of this
>>>> concept. ISOC has published something similar, using a different approach
>>>> to displaying the results.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > The paper proposes adding a social layer to the normal stack of
>>>> issues, as in the chart below. I believe that the specific issues listed
>>>> are meant to be examples, because they are certainly not exhaustive of the
>>>> issues at any of the four layers. Of course, many problems in this space
>>>> do not live exclusively in just one layer, but 'bleed' somewhat into
>>>> adjacent layers.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Illustration 1 - Social Layer Added to the Established
>>>> Layered Model
>>>> >
>>>> > of Internet
>>>> Governance
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > The authors state:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > "We provide this conceptualization in order to trigger discussion
>>>> about which institutions and stakeholder groups should legitimately be
>>>> involved in which Internet policy issues. Put differently, we believe that
>>>> it will be
>>>> >
>>>> > beneficial to the operation of the whole online ecosystem if the
>>>> mandates of institutions are mapped and clarified with regard to their
>>>> relevance in steering Internet governance practices and policymaking."
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > "Hence, Illustration 2 shows a schematic example of mapping of
>>>> institutions with relevant mandates overlaid on the layers of Internet
>>>> governance. Here we show the IGF is positioned in the center as it has no
>>>> decision-making mandate itself but is instead, it is positioned to
>>>> facilitate and moderate said decision making to take place elsewhere. In
>>>> Clark's terminology, at the IGF, we're separating the "tussles" in a forum
>>>> where they can be analyzed in workshops and discussion sessions and then
>>>> brought back to the various other forums for decisions."
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > This approach to defining shared responsibility for Internet
>>>> governance is not new. ICANN has published its view of this, and a
>>>> extraordinarily good and thorough presentation of analysis of this type has
>>>> been made by David Souter and is well worth reading. In the above display,
>>>> national governments and their various agencies are totally missing, and
>>>> that seems to be to be a fundamental flaw, but one that can be easily
>>>> corrected.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > The space of Internet governance issues
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > The 1net discussions until now have focused primarily upon Internet
>>>> naming and numbering (the logical layer) on the one hand, and human rights
>>>> issues with respect to the Internet (the social layer). This perhaps
>>>> appropriate given the announced focus of the Brazil meeting. However, the
>>>> Brazil meeting is just one in a number of meetings, and the purple of 1net
>>>> goes well beyond that meeting.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > However, Internet governance is much more than names and addresses.
>>>> And in fact, in terms of stability of operations, the current use of names
>>>> and addresses by Internet users to actually do things using the Internet is
>>>> working remarkably well. On the other had, most of the other examples in
>>>> the first chart above, where the Internet is colliding with existing
>>>> activities and changing the nature of processes, is not working nearly as
>>>> well as we would like. To be sure, the problems are more difficult, and
>>>> require a different set of actors to solve, but that is no reason for not
>>>> discussing them. In fact, there is every reason to address this set of
>>>> issues in order to start to solve them.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Consider just the content layer for the moment.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Many of the issues in this layer depend locally upon adequate
>>>> legislation and regulation that depends on a balance between freedom for
>>>> and restrictions on behavior and actions, both sides of the balance being
>>>> supported by social goals. At the international level, cooperation
>>>> requires a minimum of agreement regarding that balance so that
>>>> international cooperation among nation governments can take place. What
>>>> initiatives might make it possible to achieve both appropriate structures
>>>> at the national level and coordinated structures at the international level
>>>> to make this happen. Do we need an UNCITRAL-type movement to work toward
>>>> these goals? Among the issues affected are:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > - Addressing cybercrime activities effectively
>>>> >
>>>> > - Understanding and ameliorating the spam situation
>>>> >
>>>> > - ISP liability issues for content stored and/or
>>>> transmitted
>>>> >
>>>> > - Consumer protection
>>>> >
>>>> > - Electronic document status (contracts, etc.)
>>>> >
>>>> > - Regulatory and legislative environment -- effects on
>>>> Internet access and pricing
>>>> >
>>>> > - Competition policy within country and internationally
>>>> >
>>>> > - Policy/support for community services
>>>> >
>>>> > - Culture with respect to private data of individuals
>>>> (tracking, advertising, etc.)
>>>> >
>>>> > - Intellectual property rights
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I suspect that most everyone on this list can expand it with their
>>>> own issue of importance.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > These are areas where intensive national government involvement is
>>>> absolutely essential. Where are these issues being discussed in a way that
>>>> has the possibility of dramatically improving these situations? Does the
>>>> 1net list have any claim to, or responsibility for, addressing this area?
>>>> It certainly is a part of Internet governance?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Bertrand de la Chapelle has been discussing the international
>>>> dimension of these issues in his cross-boundary jurisdiction project, and
>>>> he is raising really important issues and providing insights into the
>>>> nature of this problem. However, as much if not more attention needs to be
>>>> paid to these issues at the national level. Where are national governments
>>>> being faced with these issues as a part of their responsibilities. How can
>>>> other sectors assist in making this happen? Which other actors play a part
>>>> in improving things, and is this happening. How can 1net comment
>>>> meaningfully on these issues?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Concluding ...
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Using the working definition of Internet governance adopted by the
>>>> WGIG in 2005:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > 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.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > How might the discussions on 1net be enlarged in a productive manner
>>>> to address some of the issue areas included in the above definition, other
>>>> than the ones that have received extensive discussion to date? Define this
>>>> as problem no. 2, if you like, but its really a meta-problem. The real
>>>> problems are the ones listed above.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > George
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > * * *
>>>> >
>>>> > 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
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > discuss mailing list
>>>> > discuss at 1net.org
>>>> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>>> Facultad de Química UNAM
>>> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>>> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>>> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
>>> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
>>> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
>>> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
>>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140313/8b819257/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list