This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list.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

avri avri at
Wed Dec 18 02:04:24 CET 2013


The respective rules as defined by governments do not reflect the actual roles of the various stakeholder groups.

This is a false underpinning to participatory governance, currently termed multistakeholderism. If one stakeholder can get away with misdefining
the roles and responsibility of all the other stakeholders, it makes working together almost impossible.

This is one of the flaws in the Tunis Agenda, a document that should be seen as a conversation starter, not as a final religious text.  Governments got together in Geneva & Tunis, they allowed a few of us 'lobby' them from the side lines and from just outside the tent, and then declared their own special role while minimizing the roles of everyone else.


Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: "Peter H. Hellmonds" <peter.hellmonds at> 
Date: 12/17/2013  18:22  (GMT-05:00) 
To: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at> 
Cc: i-coordination at 
Subject: Re: [I-coordination] New: How do we dissect Internet governance?
 	[Was: Europe at a tipping point?] 
The "respective roles" are all enumerated in the Geneva Declaration of Principles. 

Peter H. Hellmonds
<peter.hellmonds at>
+49 (160) 360-2852

On 17.12.2013, at 17:41, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at> wrote:

I agree with Milton. Not only revised -- we need to establish what are
these respective roles exactly *in the view of each stakeholder*. It
will be fun... :)


> On 12/17/2013 02:29 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> I agree with Jeremy.
> Unless Brian and other IETF folks are going to take a crash course in international relations, political science, and institutional economics, their efforts to come up with a definition of 'governance' is likely to fall far short.
> However, there is one aspect of the definition that badly needs to be revised. That is the reference to the "respective roles" of different stakeholder groups. As noted in my response to Adam, the division of stakeholders into "roles" was a reactionary modification of the definition insisted upon in the early stages of WSIS by a coalition of authoritarian and more conservative-thinking governments. We can and should revisit that part of the standard definition.
> ________________________________
> From: i-coordination-bounces at [i-coordination-bounces at] on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 12:51 AM
> To: i-coordination at
> Subject: Re: [I-coordination] New: How do we dissect Internet governance? [Was: Europe at a tipping point?]
> On 17/12/13 08:45, 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?
> The wording of the WGIG definition of Internet governance is almost identical to a widely cited definition of an international regime that has a considerable body of theory behind it.  So I would hesitate to throw it out because it is unfamiliar or threatening to those who are more familiar with technical aspects of Internet governance.
> I also don't think that redefining the terms of the debate now, when governments and other stakeholders have already become comfortable with those terms and have been operating under them for years, is going to bring the stakeholders any closer together, if that is something that 1net is aiming to do.
> If the terminology does not fit well with the technical community's self-defined problem-space, or seems to extend to issues that you think are not "real issues", then maybe it is that that problem space is too narrow, rather than that the terminology is inappropriate or that those broader issues are not real.
> --
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |
> @Consumers_Int |<> |<>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<>. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see
> _______________________________________________
> 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...

More information about the I-coordination mailing list