This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list.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] New: How do we dissect Internet governance? [Was: Europe at a tipping point?]

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at
Tue Dec 17 20:57:37 CET 2013


Excellent; sorry missed this Alejandro; so can this be taken forward I
wonder.  Nigel 

From:  George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at>
Date:  Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:25 PM
To:  Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at>
Cc:  Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at>, William Drake
<william.drake at>, "I-coordination at" <i-coordination at>
Subject:  Re: [I-coordination] New: How do we dissect Internet governance?
[Was: Europe at a tipping point?]

It really worth looking at the paper that Alejandro suggested:

Jeonghyun Baak and Carolina Rossini present a compilation of principles (for
Internet freedom, mostly). They have also made public tables with a
detailes, issue-by-issue compilation of statements from a very broad set of
organizations. Very high quality work.


On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Nigel Hickson wrote:

> Nick; great idea; we have some from OECD; Council of Europe and European
> Commission. A coordinate input to Brazil would be great!
> From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at>
> Date: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 6:45 PM
> To: William Drake <william.drake at>
> Cc: "I-coordination at" <i-coordination at>
> Subject: Re: [I-coordination] New: How do we dissect Internet governance?
> [Was: Europe at a tipping point?]
> To Bill¹s point in the first instance it would be useful to identify those
> principles that exist to date and their source and scope. Perhaps 1net could
> host a wiki environment or the like where those with knowledge of one or more
> could get a list together?
> On 17 Dec 2013, at 18:34, William Drake <william.drake at> wrote:
>> Hi George
>> On Dec 17, 2013, at 6:24 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at>
>> wrote:
>>> Bill,
>>> You say: "Do we really have nothing more important to be doing here at this
>>> point than redefining the wheel as just a round thingy?  I thought this list
>>> was supposed to be for coordination of multistakeholder dialogue on Sao
>>> Paulo and beyond, but it seems to alternate between being a troll paradise
>>> and the site of a lot of meandering debates on points that are generally
>>> being addressed more systematically elsewhere.  Or am I alone in this
>>> perception?"
>>> I agree that we need to address points systematically.  Can you provide a
>>> list of systematic points (dare we call them issues?) that it would, in your
>>> view, be useful to discuss?
>> Well, why not start with the question of principles?  The initiators of the
>> SP meeting have been saying from the outset they¹d like to have a sort of
>> multistakeholder declaration of principles.  Presumably it¹d be helpful if
>> 1net participants were to provide some input on this, and presumably we¹d
>> like it to be more than just nice fluffy words.  Why not discuss the range of
>> options to make this a useful exercise, and see where there¹s
>> cross-stakeholder consensus and where there¹s not?  It¹s something concrete
>> that needs to be done, and they want input by 1 March.
>> Cheers
>> Bill

-------------- 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