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

[michael gurstein]

John,

 

From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 11:04 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is globalized?
(:-)

 

On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:40 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:


[MG>] snip

 

In reviewing the materials for the meeting, there does indeed seem to be a
presumption

that a multistakeholder approach is the appropriate model for conducting the
discussions

(for example, one can look at the meeting title itself)   If you have a
significant concern with 

the NetMundial structure, that's probably something that would be best to
take up with the 

convener.

[MG>] well since I/we were deliberately excluded from making an active
contribution to the formulation of these issues by the actions of 1Net and
its lack of legitimate process, transparency, accountability, or capacity to
accommodate effective diversity (i.e. normative (rather than identity)
diversity); your comment  is shall we say, rather bizarre  and one which in
itself (and including its broader context) represents the necessary evidence
for  a deep questioning of how legitimate (as a substitute for democratic
processes) at a practical level MSism will be outside of the narrow
technical confines of the IETF or ICANN.  

 

I'll note that 1net discussion list is trying to catalyze community-wide
efforts "towards the 

evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation", so it also might
be predisposed 

towards such multistakeholder approaches... 

[MG>] see above

 

Do you know of many folks who are interested in discussion of
non-multistakeholder 

approaches to this problem?  Perhaps if you could write up an alternative
proposal, we

can strive to discuss it on this list (and ask that you tolerate any
potential selection bias

in current list participants?)

[MG>] You are again mis-presenting the issue.  The question is not
"multistakeholder" vis "non-multistakeholder" but rather the way in which
the process is undertaken-how it handles or not things like (normative)
diversity, conflict, threats, conflicts of interest, capture and so on.  No
one I think, would argue that the various groups/interests/"stakeholders"
shouldn't be involved in the discussions concerning matters of Internet
governance but the question is what are the rules that govern those
processes and how is an assurance provided that the process and the outcome
is in the global interest rather than being subverted to support one or
another (or combination) of private/sectional/national interests. 

 

So far I have yet to hear anything concerning these.  All I hear are
repeated statements that MSism is all good things for all good people, but
no recognition that in the absence of clarity  around rules and regs and
including processes for their enforcement all we are being asked to buy are
repeated incantations of "trust me" from folks among whom have to be
included tax dodgers, Internet "arsonists", self-absorbed techies, and a
rather large collection of folks who have no interest in or understanding of
what might be meant by a "global public interest" and certainly little
interest in pursuing in their deliberations and decision making much beyond
narrow corporate or national self-interests.

 

As an aside It is extremely refreshing to note that Civil Society active in
global trade issues is coming to recognize the false and misleading promise
of "MSism" and are now insisting that the public interest needs to be put
ahead of corporate interests in the conduct of global trade negotiations
such as the TTIP.

 

M

 

M

 

Thanks!

/John

 

Disclaimer: My views alone.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140313/603ea791/attachment.html>