This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.

[I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Sat Dec 7 03:24:16 CET 2013


On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> JC: Many of us are very strong supporters of IGF and don't see that
> changing - can you explain why you view this as an "either/or"
> proposition?
> 
> FB: I believe my concern is that how does this effort add value
> amongst all the other efforts, freedom forums, GNI, trade
> associations, lobby groups, already existing NIC meets, ICANN meets,
> IGF meets, regional IGFs?

The value to be obtained from "1net" is obviously still to be determined,
but see below regarding "duplication" or lack thereof.

> Did all rest fail or did the I*
> organizations feel that their representation amidst existing IG or IPP
> related settings and arrangement was somehow very weak and placing
> them as a stakeholder group amongst CS as technical community or
> academia was not sufficient? If so, they are also there as PS?

I can't speak for the I* organizations regarding whether they "feel that their 
representation amidst existing IG or IPP related settings and arrangement was 
somehow very weak and placing them as a stakeholder group amongst CS as technical 
community or academia was not sufficient" but I can certainly speak for ARIN -

With respect to IGF/MAG/CSTD, ARIN believes that "the Internet Governance Forum 
(including its set of regional preparatory meetings) as an important catalyst for 
enhanced cooperation. The IGF format is unique among international conferences on 
Internet matters in that it provides for open information-sharing and discussion 
between all interested stakeholders, and ARIN's support of the Internet Governance 
Forum helps insure continuation of this important venue for multistakeholder dialogue."
<https://www.arin.net/announcements/2013/20130830.html - ARIN provides additional 
support to the 2013 internet governance forum (IGF) meeting in Bali, Indonesia>  
ie. there has been no concern about representation being "weak" and/or "insufficient".

> FB: There are no suspicions, I am trying to understand why the members
> that I know from all other stakeholder groups have felt weak in their
> existing IG/IPP settings and arrangements and feel this is the best
> most rational approach ever at this particular moment in time.

Strange, I haven't heard anyone indicating that they "felt weak in their
existing IG/IPP settings and arrangements..."  Could you provide some
references to these members statements that lead you to such assertions?

> There is duplication of effort. 

There is?  Please describe which existing effort today provides a neutral, 
focused initiative to discuss selected Internet issues with the intent of 
working towards actionable collaborative solutions.  While one might reference 
the IGF, I don't believe that "focused" and "actionable solutions" come to mind, 
at least in its present form and prior to various improvements that are being 
considered.  Certainly ICANN, the RIRs, and the IETF all work on various problems 
toward actionable solutions, but the level of focus varies from measures of 
technical coordination to extremely technical protocol efforts, and while open 
to all participants, I'm not certain that those not already participating would 
necessarily identify them as neutral forums for problem solving.

Given the numerous challenges in Internet coordination that we have today 
(e.g. spam, surveillance, child protection, copyright enforcement, anonymity, 
botnets/DDOS/cybersecurity, network neutrality, freedom of speech, privacy,
user tracking, etc.), I think it's safe to say that whatever efforts have
been made to date may indeed be excellent from the perspective of education 
and capacity building, but don't seem to be measurably reducing the list of
issues outstanding.  In that manner, they're not duplicative to what "1net"
could potentially accomplish, at least from my perspective.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone (except where specifically quoted above)





More information about the I-coordination mailing list