This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit

[I-coordination] A Framework for Recent Internet Governance Discussions – From Montevideo Statement to 1net (was: Re: What is 1net to me?)

Mawaki Chango kichango at
Tue Dec 3 20:06:03 CET 2013

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at>wrote:

> Hi John,
> 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
> beyond.

Thanks, John for sharing your enlightening insights, always.


> Marília
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:33 PM, John Curran <jcurran at> wrote:
>> I recently wrote down some thoughts on 1net - attached to this email for
>> those interested. (Reference the original posting for hyperlinks, etc.)
>> FYI,
>> /John
>> === <
>> >
>> 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
>> equally
>>   - 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 ( and
>> help shape the future of Internet cooperation.
>> Thank you and Happy Holidays!
>> /John
>> 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
> --
> *Marília Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> DiploFoundation associate
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the I-coordination mailing list