This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list.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

Subi Chaturvedi subichaturvedi at
Tue Dec 17 21:38:49 CET 2013

I believe so. Its a useful document Robert. Have attached it for ready

Its always good to revisit basics.

The WGIG first considered five criteria, namely that the working definition
should be *adequate*, *generalizable*, *descriptive*, *concise *and

But the questions that we're posing is essentially the adequacy of the
definition, to encapsulate the recency and relevance to contemporary issues.

What I would also like to draw attention to

" are significant barriers to multi-stakeholder participation in governance

   - There is often a lack of transparency, openness and participatory
   - Participation in some intergovernmental organizations and other
   international organizations is often limited and expensive, especially for
   developing countries, indigenous peoples, civil society organizations, and
   small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
   - The content produced by some intergovernmental organizations and other
   international organizations is often restricted to members only or is
   available at a prohibitive cost.
   - Frequency and location of venues for global policy meetings causes
   some stakeholders from more remote areas to limit their participation.
   - There is a lack of a global mechanism for participation by
   Governments, especially from developing countries, in addressing
   multisectoral issues related to global Internet policy development."

While we have addressed some it is ironic that even after 8 years we still
remain a work in progress on fundamentals which ought to be a prerequisite
for facilitating IG processes and participation from stakeholders from
emerging economies and developing countries still remains a challenge.



Subi Chaturvedi
Assistant Prof. Journalism,
Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), DU

Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee,
Media For Change

Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor
The Saltlist

On 18 December 2013 01:53, Robert Guerra <rguerra at> wrote:

> Ben,
> Wasn't there a taxonomy of issues listed in the wgig report.... (Which
> came out in 2005)?
> Robert
> Sent from my iPad
> > On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:59 PM, "Dr. Ben Fuller" <ben at> wrote:
> >
> > George,
> >
> > How this for a first attempt at a broad taxonomy of issues.
> >
> > Technical, Community centred issues, Cross cutting issues.
> >
> > Technical.
> > These are clearly technical matters that are already dealt with by
> different agencies; each having is own mandate, membership and terms of
> reference for its work. The kinds of issues they deal with are (as you
> mention) packet routing, also DNS, IPv6, and so forth. I don't know how the
> different groups, IETF, ICANN etc., work together, but conceivably, they
> could if there ever was a more unified Internet governance structure.
> >
> > Community Centred Issues.
> > These issues will be wide ranging and could include; cyber crime,
> Internet access as a fundamental right, developing national and regional
> local Internet markets. The way you deal with these issues is to coordinate
> with existing institutions. Any Internet governance body would never be
> able to acquire the expertise, nor deal with the geographical scope of
> activities taking place in many countries. For cyber crime, one might look
> to working with Interpol or agencies of the UN. For developing national and
> regional markets, one could work with the World Bank or any of the major
> development agencies. A commonality of these institutions is that they have
> long standing expertise and have physical presence around the globe and
> they can pursue initiatives in many countries. An Internet governance body
> does not want to replicate these agencies, rather work with them and
> contribute as far as the Internet may be a cause of the problem or part of
> a solution.
> >
> > Cross Cutting Issues.
> > These are issues that arise as a result of technical decisions, but have
> a significant community based aspect. One issues I've wondered about is the
> WHOIS policy. Lets say ICANN makes major changes to WHOIS policy. The way I
> understand things, ICANN can then get the gTLD operators and accredited
> registrars to adopt the changes through their existing contracts. But, that
> leaves out all the ccTLD managers and registrars who are not accredited
> with ICANN. Again, any Internet governance body would have to find partners
> with skills and presence in different parts of the world where they can
> push the rationale behind adopting the (hypothetical) WHOIS policy, perhaps
> to the point of assisting in the establishment of national legislation.
> >
> > I just looked at the Issue families on page 3 of Baak and Rossini. The
> issues listed could be sorted into the above framework without much problem.
> >
> > Ben
> >
> >
> >> On Dec 17, 2013, at 7:24 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The call for a broad taxonomy is an attempt to get at issues and issue
> clusters so that they can be addressed individually, and to get away from
> representation by stakeholder prompted silos.
> >
> > **********************************************
> > Dr. Ben Fuller
> > +264-61-224470  (O)    +264-88-63-68-05 (F)
> > ben at   
> > skype: drbenfuller
> > **********************************************
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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...
Type: application/pdf
Size: 121636 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the I-coordination mailing list