This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to firstname.lastname@example.org. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.
[I-coordination] New: How do we dissect Internet governance? [Was: Europe at a tipping point?]
Shatan, Gregory S.
GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Wed Dec 18 03:32:57 CET 2013
Do you mean these "respective roles"?
49. The management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is recognized that:
a. Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues;
b. The private sector has had and should continue to have an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields;
c. Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role;
d. Intergovernmental organizations have had and should continue to have a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues;
e. International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.
The role for government is very broad -- all of public policy is their "sovereign right"! You've lost me right there.... Not into the "rights of kings".
Civil Society's role is completely undefined -- "keep doing what you're doing"
Private Sector is limited to technical and "economic"?!?! fields (I guess they mean we should all make money)
IGOs are the facilitators of the government's public policy (Techno Cat would say "henchmen")
INGOs can develop technical standards and policies -- engineers only need apply....
Well, at least I see why we need different definitions...
From: i-coordination-bounces at nro.net [mailto:i-coordination-bounces at nro.net] On Behalf Of Peter H. Hellmonds
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 6:23 PM
To: Carlos A. Afonso
Cc: i-coordination at nro.net
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 hellmonds.eu>
+49 (160) 360-2852
On 17.12.2013, at 17:41, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> 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 nro.net [i-coordination-bounces at nro.net]
> on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 12:51 AM
> To: i-coordination at nro.net
> 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<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. 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 http://jere.my/l/8m.
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at nro.net
I-coordination mailing list
I-coordination at nro.net
I-coordination mailing list
I-coordination at nro.net
* * *
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
More information about the I-coordination