This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to firstname.lastname@example.org.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
jcurran at arin.net
Sat Dec 7 05:52:40 CET 2013
On Dec 7, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't you think being I* organization initiated and driven is already
> the first speed breaker on the path neutrality?
Please elaborate on the above?
> ... Why not go forward and strengthen the GNI efforts, build
> another AC/OC at ICANN since its already trying to move into the
> political space with its limited mandate of DNS/IP management?
Are you proposing this as a potentially valid alternative to 1net?
(I do not believe it would be an appropriate approach, but am open
to understanding your views.)
> Somehow we tend to put the stakeholder group activity that happens at
> IGF and ICANN behind us in these discussions when we try to assert
> something new is more useful than an existing arrangement. I want to
> learn why cooperation of all stakeholder groups could not be unified
> at IGF?
Personally, I believe that there is great cooperation among stakeholder
groups at and via IGF. There doesn't seem to be significant focus, at
present, on converging towards actual deployable solutions.
> Was it because no one thought of it or its because interests
> are variable for each interest group? This is indeed a duplication of
> effort that has been done in the past within the IGF community to
> converge on similar issues and build possible bridges on certain
> issues. I would be amused to see how the 1Net addresses the issue of
> Human Rights, Network Neutrality, Freedom of Expression and Access
> with out hitting traditional walls when the stakeholders do debate
> such issues at the IGF. Trust me, talking about EC beyond the IGF or
> the UN has no legitimacy and rationality.
Talking about solutions to problems has no legitimacy unless done
in the IGF or UN? I'm afraid to disappoint you, but problems are
discussed and solved by many collections of folks each and everyday,
and legitimacy is created by success. Is the Internet legitimate
by your measure, or you perhaps using a definition of "legitimacy"
that you can elaborate on?
> 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.
> Its interesting how I've heard similar talk at the ITU WSIS Forum and
> many other meetings in the UN. Somehow the rationality for creating
> something anew is usually promoted with such phrases. The potential
> accomplishment we expect from 1Net is a bit blurred in its formation.
> Why not start the 1Net irrespective of the Brazil meeting instead of
> attempting to give the meeting some kind of legitimacy within the
> scope of global IG and IPP? That would be a good first step to prove
> that all the members of 1Net take a stand on an issue instead of
> trying to prove an activity valid.
Full agreement on this point as well, and that was the expected course
of events. As I noted before, 1net was discussed before and independent
of the Brazil meeting, and the particular turn of events (i.e. 1net,
still in its infancy, being provided a significant role in organization
of that meeting) is something for the 1net Steering Committee to consider,
when such is finally seated.
Disclaimer: My views alone.
More information about the I-coordination