This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list.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] Europe at a tipping point?

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at
Sat Dec 14 19:30:17 CET 2013

Good afternoon

Your thoughtful observations I hope will be observed in the right quarters;
it is good we have opportunity to comment like this.  We must also remember
that a Commission Communication is just that; it then is responsibility of
the Council (and if appropriate the Parliament) to either endorse it or not;
without such endorsement it is not a European Union strategy



From:  sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet at>
Date:  Friday, December 13, 2013 8:19 PM
To:  Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at>
Cc:  "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at>, "I-coordination at"
<i-coordination at>, Milton L Mueller <mueller at>
Subject:  Re: [I-coordination] Europe at a tipping point?

Dear Nigel Hickson,

If those who are working on this draft are tuned to this discussion so as to
produce a more rounded and thoughtful paper,  their attention may please be
drawn to the following passage from the blog post

Quote: ... the native Internet communities as nothing more than people to be
invited to conduct consultations that still leave decision making power in
the hands of governments. After praising the state-created and state-led
Brazilian Internet Governance Steering Committee, it says that if such a
model were used in Europe it could provide "non-binding advisory opinions"
End of Quote.

The leaked document said "nonbinding advisory opinions" This bothers me as a
mind-set of 'This far and no further'. I have heard a similar point of view
expressed in India, that can be roughly translated as 'other stakeholders
can be seated around the table, they can talk we will listen, but we (the
Government) make the policy. That is our role'

If Europe is inclined to nurture the  multi stakeholder model, this mind set
needs to be altered. The document needs to move away from "multinational" to
"multi stakeholder", away from limitations expressed by the use of words
such as "nonbinding" and "advisory" towards words such as "participative"
and "inclusive"

Sivasubramanian M

On Dec 9, 2013 10:16 PM, "Nigel Hickson" <nigel.hickson at> wrote:
> Milton
> As ever you have hit the right note; as civil servants we sometimes
> welcomed "leaks" (shock, horror) as the feedback enabled us to produce a
> more rounded and thoughtful product. But conversely the rhetoric can be
> unhelpful if folks take a leak as formal policyŠ.
> Best
> Nigel
> On 12/9/13 5:41 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at> wrote:
>> >Carlos and Jeremy,
>> >If one is familiar with the history of WSIS, and with the initial
>> >reaction of states in WSIS to the demands for participation by non-state
>> >actors, and with the battle over 'enhanced cooperation', it is flat wrong
>> >to dismiss the EC draft's repeated emphasis on different (and
>> >subordinate) stakeholder roles as "ethereal." It is what the whole IG
>> >debate Is fundamentally about right now. For the EC to come down firmly
>> >on the side of subordinating non-state actors to state actors in all
>> >policy making processes would be a highly significant development - one
>> >that many of us would think of as a setback to Internet freedom and
>> >autonomy as well.
>> >
>> >As for waiting for the full document, well, welcome to the Heisenberg
>> >principle. Because of our intervention, and because of the internal
>> >opposition to these reactionary trends in the EC, it is unlikely that the
>> >"final document" you see will be the same as the draft that was leaked.
>> >
>> >Carlos:
>> >No need to quibble about this, really, but an organization created by a
>> >national law, the majority of whose members are government ministries,
>> >and without any representation from foreigners might reasonably be called
>> >'state-led.'
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: i-coordination-bounces at
>> >[mailto:i-coordination-bounces at] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso
>> >Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 6:48 AM
>> >To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; I-coordination at
>> >Subject: Re: [I-coordination] Europe at a tipping point?
>> >
>> >Hi people, I would like to read the whole document. I think IGP's
>> >analysis may be overreacting and may be misleading, but it would be great
>> >to read the whole doc first.
>> >
>> >Two quick points which are independent of the doc's content:
>> >
>> >- is not "state-led";
>> >
>> >- "in their respective roles" is in fact ethereal and also includes the
>> >"respective roles" of governments, whatever this means -- it is of such
>> >generic scope that one cannot conclude that the world will end just by
>> >the mention of this.
>> >
>> >--c.a.
>> >
>> >On 12/09/2013 07:12 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>>> >> Hello all,
>>> >>
>>> >> whilst we're all discussing who's going to be sitting physically at
>>> >> the table in Brazil, the world moves on and our colleagues in Europe
>>> >> might have some (real) work to do:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> -leaked-ec-document-stirs-internet-governance-controversy/
>>> >>
>>> >> Kind regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Olivier
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> I-coordination mailing list
>>> >> I-coordination at
>>> >>
>>> >>
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >I-coordination mailing list
>> >I-coordination at
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >I-coordination mailing list
>> >I-coordination at
>> >
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5027 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the I-coordination mailing list