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

Fri Mar 14 17:05:54 UTC 2014

John,

For a variety of personal and other reasons I've had very limited
time/bandwidth for matters such as contributions to NetMundial over the last
couple of months or so. Whatever time/bandwidth I've had available I've
chosen to apply it in areas where I think I could make my best contribution
notably the Community Informatics Declaration and the Just Net process and
statements.

I see little value or probable contribution in generating ad hoc "models" of
governance as you (and others) have been calling for.  I'll leave that to
the proponents of a shape shifting MSism where there appears to be a new
"model" to respond to every challenge or contingency and yet no one is
willing to answer some quite simple and direct questions concerning process
and procedure, accountability and transparency, methodology and so on
however hard they work at propagating the meme.

I would be delighted to undertake/participate/contribute to a serious effort
to work through the very complex and extraordinarily important issues
associated with Internet (and other) Governance in a post-Snowden
Internetworked environment. Unfortunately no one seems willing to take these
matters on with the seriousness that I think they warrant, preferring it
appears to propagate slogans rather than concepts, and presumptions rather
than analyses.

My own starting point for these matters including if you want, my approach
to Democracy in an Internet post-Snowden environment is subsumed within the
CI Declaration and the Just Net documents which dare I say, is rather more
of an explicit starting point than anything I have yet seen from the MSists
among us.

Best,

M

From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 4:20 PM
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 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 

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  

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.

Thanks!

/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140314/d2976331/attachment-0001.html>