[discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
apisanty at gmail.com
Sun Mar 23 07:22:11 UTC 2014
this statement puts in a nutshell what never ceases to amaze me: civil
society has gained the most among all sectors from the multistakeholder
component of governance, be it Internet, finance, or the environment. We
from civil society have broken silos and gained a global voice and
unparallelled global influence, often paired with influence inside our
Yet the position you present reverts power to governments only - e.g.
through the demand of public funding and the exclusion of private funding;
the same governments most civil society is at odds with (admittedly in very
different ways and levels.)
I continue to find it incredibly paradoxal to have civil society leading
the effort to braid the rope with which governments would gladly hang us.
Another perplexing element of this discourse is calling the effective,
open, evolvable, broadly participatory and open multistakeholder processes
undemocratic and the multilateral and governmental "democratic", when maybe
two thirds of the world population do not consider their condition
The remedy to the thick suspicionism of yours and colleagues - after
stating lack of knowledge of the organizations and matters beign spoken of
- is not doing away with the multistakeholder component in favor of the
governmental or multilateral, but optimizing the combined contributions
they can make. ICANN-as-a-laboratory provides a lot of learning in this
respect, wasted by not being studied enough. And the whole framework is
vital for the NTIA functional substitution problem to hand, which these
discussions have long drifted away from.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:59 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
> This is what IETF's own RFC 3869 says
> "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.
> In addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the development of open standards, or taking
> varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet."
> It is important to recognise that research is not a monopoly function, but
> governance definitionally is. So, if commercial funding can distort
> Internet research, it is but obviously that it has to be an absolute no no
> for governance functions (standards making for something as socially
> important today as the Internet, in absence of any further neutral public
> oversight constitutes a governance function).
> On Sunday 23 March 2014 07:04 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 03/23/2014 01:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
> I personally have no idea whether what you folks and your compadres
> do/come up with is as pure as todays snowfall up on Grouse
> Mountain--or not. But the absence of a recognition of what is
> expected of you in terms of (at least formal) accountability and
> transparency and what those expectations imply is, as I said to
> John, I think a rather significant problem.
> Actually you said you didn't know how the IETF works.
> And I said that the sponsorship stuff is public. And
> all the mailing list traffic is public and open to all.
> I really think you're in the arena of FUD in terms of
> how your concern absolutely does not apply in the IETF
> But yet again - if you or someone is concerned go look
> at the facts in the public record and then come back.
> I am entirely sure that if something interesting were
> found there the IETF would discuss it to death in the
> same manner we do with almost everything. But I'm also
> pretty confident that such an examination of the IETF
> if done fairly would actually not show up such a problem.
> So the situation is that you don't know how the IETF works.
> And the IETF does (I claim, knowing something about it, but
> anyone can verify) act transparently with accountability.
> The problem it seems to me is with the first sentence in
> this paragraph.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> discuss mailing listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.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
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss