This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list.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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at
Wed Dec 18 01:16:31 CET 2013

On balance, I don't think I'm going to do this. I'm not
very interested in helping to perpetuate an ongoing 'dialogue
de sourds'.

I would however suggest adding a rider to the definition:

Internet governance does not concern the administration of
technical parameters of the Internet that affect its inner
workings rather than way it is used by society.

   Brian Carpenter

On 17/12/2013 14:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Carlos,
> Starting from zero is usually a mistake, but sharpening
> a blunt definition is often useful. I will have a go at
> it in my 'copious free time' as George suggests.
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
> On 17/12/2013 14:03, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> Just recalling that WGIG definition: "Internet governance is the
>> development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil
>> society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules,
>> decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and
>> use of the Internet."
>> Every new definition will involve compromises. Are you suggesting one
>> should restart from zero?
>> --c.a.
>> On 12/16/2013 10:45 PM, George Sadowsky wrote:
>>> The WGIG definition of Internet governance, the result of meetings in 2004-5, was the result of political compromise.  I think that it is not helping us here.  AS Brian says below, the notion of Internet governance mixes up too many things, and does not seem to be useful for addressing real issues.
>>> Can we come up with a different vocabulary and a somewhat different structure that is much more consistent with our problem space, so that these different issues don't get confused (and yes, I understand that there may well be overlap between them)?
>>> Brian, can you suggest some appropriate vocabulary and/or taxonomy?
>>> George
>>>> Message: 6
>>>> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:25:46 +1300
>>>> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at>
>>>> Subject: Re: [I-coordination] Europe at a tipping point?
>>>> To: "Dr. Ben Fuller" <ben at>
>>>> Cc: "i-coordination at" <i-coordination at>
>>>> Message-ID: <52AF6FDA.1090409 at>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>>> On 17/12/2013 08:08, Dr. Ben Fuller wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> When I look around for a template on how Internet governance might work I think about HIV and AIDS. (Transparency alert: I am the dean of a faculty of HIV and AIDS Managment at a local university). There are similarities. A medical/technical problem -- the HIV virus that brings about AIDS that leads to death from opportunistic infections. A set of massive socioeconomic impacts of the disease at global, national and local levels. Both sides pursued their own trajectories in dealing with their aspect of the issue, but they often met at the same venue, stayed aware of what the other side was doing, cooperated when needed and so forth. When looking around for a framework of how to take Internet governance forward we might learn something from the experiences of HIV. 
>>>> I know little about HIV, but I suspect that you would react to
>>>> the phrases "HIV Governance" or "AIDS Governance" the way I
>>>> react to "Internet Governance". It just mixes up too many
>>>> different things under a word that only describes a few of
>>>> those things.
>>>>    Brian
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> I-coordination mailing list
>>> I-coordination at
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-coordination mailing list
>> I-coordination at

More information about the I-coordination mailing list