[discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is globalized? (:-)

Thu Mar 13 18:16:26 UTC 2014

Clearly I wasn’t saying any of the things you put forth, and I can’t see how you would get any of those from what I saying, unless you are just trying to be provocative.

I think you have some fairly clear explanations of how the MS model works in practice at one organization (ICANN) and can fairly easily see how it works (a bit differently) at another organization (IETF).

How the multistakeholder model would be implemented elsewhere in an Internet Governance context  would be up to those implementing it.  It would probably resemble both ICANN multistakeholderism and IETF multistakeholderism, yet have some differences.  Such is the nature of implementing any type of governance model.

I can’t see how you can state, based on what’s been written, that the IETF and ICANN models of MSism are not in fact what MSism is, unless you are trying to be provocative.  They are both very much implementations of the Multistakeholder Model.  So, whatever “clarity” you think you have is completely misguided.

I’ve given you and pointed you to links for a clear exposition of the multistakeholder model in practice.  If you want a clear exposition of the theoretical model of Multistakeholder governance, I’m sure you can find one.  Rather than waiting, you should be proactive.

If there’s someone on this list participating from the USG, they can choose to speak to your last request.

Greg Shatan

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 11:51 AM
To: 'McTim'
Cc: Shatan, Gregory S.; 'George Sadowsky'; '1Net List'
Subject: RE: [discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is globalized? (:-)

Well, since I’m still waiting for answers to my questions concerning specifics with regard to “MSism” I was a bit grasping at straws since both Alejandro and Greg were making such confident assertions about the radiant “nature of MSism”.

And it is good to get some clarity if only negative concerning what we are discussing i.e. we now know that the (relatively well developed) IETF and ICANN models of MSism are not in fact what MSism is.

We still however, await some clear exposition as to what MSism is.

Surely the US government which mentioned MSism 12 times in their one page presentation to NetMundial (or other of MSism’s exponents) could point us to some definitive exposition as to what they mean by a term which they are espousing with such abandon and which presumably the NetMundial meeting will be under some pressure to endorse.

M

From: dogwallah at gmail.com<mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com> [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 4:06 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Shatan, Gregory S.; George Sadowsky; 1Net List
Subject: Re: [discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is globalized? (:-)

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:47 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
Interesting response Greg (and Alejandro…

Are you both saying that MSism as currently being presented for Internet Governance will be a part of ICANN and thus operate within the rules and practices of ICANN?

neither are saying this from what i gather.

And is this something that the various other proponents of MSism have agreed to?

nor are they saying this.

If this is the case then I believe that it changes everything in that ICANN now becomes the global Internet Governance framework.

but it is not the case that the above assertions were made.

rgds,

McTim

* * *

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140313/8db0c8ba/attachment-0001.html>