This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to email@example.com. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.
[I-coordination] A Framework for Recent Internet Governance Discussions – From Montevideo Statement to 1net (was: Re: What is 1net to me?)
mariliamaciel at gmail.com
Tue Dec 3 19:53:41 CET 2013
Thank you for explaining the history and goals behind the initiative that
came to be 1net. Regardless of the conference in Brazil, the goal of
improving policy and regulatory frameworks by making sure that technical
aspects are taken into account in their development is of ultimate
relevance. As a lawyer, it is very easy to notice how most policy and
regulation about the Internet have been "floating" above the infrastructure
and architecture, without real contact with it. Inefficient or poorly
developed policies are not in the best interest of any of us.
I hope that the goal that initially inspired the technical community to
engage in this fruitful dialogue with governments - and with all
stakeholder groups here in this platform - bears fruits next year and
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:33 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> I recently wrote down some thoughts on 1net - attached to this email for
> those interested. (Reference the original posting for hyperlinks, etc.)
> === <
> There have been many significant Internet Governance developments in the
> last several weeks, and so I’d like to take this moment to provide a
> framework in which to consider these recent events.
> For the last several years, the leadership of several recognized Internet
> organizations (ISOC, ICANN, IAB/IETF, IANA, the 5 Regional Internet
> Registries (RIRs), and W3C; sometimes referred to as the “Internet
> technical organizations”) have met periodically to promote better
> coordination between these groups. While there have been brief statements
> issued in the past after such meetings, the statement issued after this
> years’ meeting (known as the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet
> Cooperation) made some observations about the Internet which were fairly
> obvious but hadn’t been documented previously in a clear and consistent
> manner. High-level points from the Montevideo Statement include:
> - Importance of globally coherent Internet operations
> - Concern over Internet fragmentation at a national level
> - Strong concern over pervasive monitoring and surveillance
> - Ongoing need to address Internet Governance challenges
> - Need for evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation
> - Need for globalization of ICANN and IANA functions
> - Need to allow all stakeholders (including governments) to participate
> - Need for the transition to IPv6 to remain a top priority globally
> It was possible that issuing the statement might have simply passed as a
> non-event, with participants going back to their organizations and working
> on various pieces of the above. For example, the IETF has been considering
> the implications of pervasive monitoring; ISOC has been exploring the
> evolution of multistakeholder Internet cooperation; ICANN has been working
> on its globalization efforts; the RIRs have been actively encouraging IPv6
> deployment; etc.
> However, many of these issues are of interest to parties not necessarily
> participating today in IETF, ISOC, ICANN, the RIRs, and W3C; this may be
> the result of folks unaware of the open participatory nature of these
> organizations. There is also a natural desire to be able to discuss
> higher-layer (i.e. social, economic, political) issues and implications
> outside of the Internet technical organizations but in a forum that still
> allows for open participation on an equal basis for all involved.
> There is presently an organization that does a good job of facilitating
> that type of discussion, and it is the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
> The IGF is chartered under the United Nations Department of Economic and
> Social Affairs (UN DESA) and has been going on for nearly a decade. While
> it is very successful as a forum of discussion, one of the frequent
> frustrations with the IGF is that while it discusses problems, in its
> present form it intentionally does not attempt to drive discussions towards
> outcomes. The result is wide-ranging discussions of “Internet challenges”
> (e.g. spam, surveillance, child protection, copyright enforcement,
> anonymity, botnets/DDOS/cybersecurity, network neutrality, freedom of
> speech, privacy/user tracking, etc.) that are informative for all, but
> generally don’t progress towards solutions, particularly since the problems
> perceived by some may be viewed as beneficial Internet features by others.
> While there are some excellent efforts underway to strengthen and improve
> the IGF as a forum, these will take some time to reach overall consensus
> and deployment.
> Ironically, some of the challenges actually do have solutions today (or if
> not solutions, at least best practices for how to cope with the present
> realities.) In some cases, what we are really missing is communication
> between the Internet technical organizations and other interested parties
> in order to get the information out there. For example, the IETF has a
> number of Best Current Practice (BCPs) documents, the implementation of
> which could help in the mitigation of spam, botnets, and other problems.
> Unfortunately, the availability of these technical solutions is seldom
> mentioned when governments, businesses, and civil society get together to
> discuss “Internet challenges.” (Recently, the folks at the Internet Society
> also noted this need for improved communication and collaboration on
> Internet challenges with the publication of their excellent “Internet
> Collaborative Stewardship Framework.”)
> It is in this context that the Montevideo Statement was followed by a call
> for something more solution-oriented than the present model of the Internet
> Governance Forum. The goal is a neutral, open forum to discuss Internet
> challenges, and that is what is now being called the 1net initiative.
> Personally, I do believe that having a neutral forum where we can better
> engage outside of the “Internet technical community” is a very good idea,
> particularly if it leads to increased collaboration with governments rather
> than having them go elsewhere and make unilateral decisions in these areas.
> When someone asks me what 1net is about, my response is that I believe it
> is intended to be a neutral, focused initiative to discuss selected
> Internet issues with the intent of working towards actionable collaborative
> solutions. I can’t predict which topics might get picked up for
> consideration (and that is truly unknowable until a 1net Steering Committee
> is seated), but it is my expectation that 1net will help promote existing
> technical solutions or identify opportunities for additional cooperation
> among Internet organizations. Similarly, it should not represent a change
> in mission for any of the organizations that get involved; it’s intended as
> way of connecting problems and solutions; an incremental step in the
> evolution of the existing global multistakeholder Internet cooperation.
> I encourage you to explore and participate in 1net (http://1net.org) and
> help shape the future of Internet cooperation.
> Thank you and Happy Holidays!
> Disclaimer: I am a signatory to the Montevideo Statement on the Future of
> Internet Cooperation (both individually and on behalf of ARIN), but this
> posting represents solely my personal views and understanding.
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at nro.net
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the I-coordination