[discuss] Will there be life on 1net after IANA is globalized? (:-)
jcurran at istaff.org
Thu Mar 13 23:19:31 UTC 2014
On Mar 13, 2014, at 2:54 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> [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
Not at all - my comment is simply that if you have an issue with NetMundial, take it up with
them, and if you have an issue with the 1net processes, again feel free to take it up with the
steering committee. I'm neither, and simply note that it appears that you've put far greater
focus on detracting from other contributions over making any concrete proposals yourself.
> [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
Excellent; we apparently have agreement on at least that one point (desirability of involving
various groups/interests in discussion 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.
Definitely an interesting topic... do you have any actual suggestions on how an Internet
governance framework should address the complexity of governments/stakeholders
shaping the outcome? The Netmundial call for contributions specifically asked for input
in that area, so would be rather surprising if you did not submit anything for consideration.
Are there any existing contributions that you feel may touch on the same matters and be
particularly important for everyone to consider in light of the potential for subversion that
you've raised? Forgive my asking if should be obvious, but there are 187 contributions
and I have not made it through them all (yet)
> 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.
I have no idea who you are referencing in the above; I predominantly see folks on this list
trying to constructively explore and discuss the issues surrounding Internet governance;
I was simply trying to figure out why you chose not to put any contributions forward on
those aspects that you've highlighted.
Disclaimer: My views alone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss