This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to firstname.lastname@example.org.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?]
jmamodio at gmail.com
Wed Dec 18 05:07:29 CET 2013
Thanks George and apologies for the late reply,
I wish I had more time to spend and focus on this but I still have a day
job that takes priority since it pays the bills.
I don't know yet what platform would work better but for sure a linear
email list does not scale and provide the structure for a more organized
and productive discussion.
I really like the idea of 1net being a platform for an open discussion
about Internet Governance and Cooperation, so I'd start first by moving as
soon as possible the list out of the NRO.NET domain since it is associated
with one particular group and may create some confusion and identity
I don't think we have to start from scratch or square zero, and we have to
move past the issue of the Internet Governance definition. While the
compromise working definition out of WSIS may still today generate some
discussion and multiple interpretations I think that it is an acceptable
definition that helps to provide additional meaning and context to what IG
is. But I still believe that "Governance" is a very conflicting word, but
as said before we need to move beyond that and after we have a more
complete and clear picture we can discuss how to better summarize in very
few words what we are talking about around here.
I'd start to identify the different issues or pieces of the puzzle. Here we
already have a lot of work done by several organizations, particularly IGF,
then try to define a group of buckets where we "drop" each issue/piece. For
example issues that are of just technical coordination go in one bucket,
regulatory issues in another, law enforcement another, civil rights,
privacy and security, etc., don't know how many yet and for sure it will be
dynamic and we will have some intersections.
There are some specific issues like creating a charter, mission and role
for 1net, preparations for the Brazil meeting, preparations for the next
IGF and other meetings, so each one can be a separate discussion in its own
This will sound too IETFistic but we can keep this list (again moved to the
1net,org domain) as a general discussion and perhaps announcement list.
Then we can create specific discussions lists for each bucket, or if
necessary for an specific issue, creating working groups of people
interested in discussing and working on them that will subscribe to the
specific list. Leaders and experts of each group will grow naturally. (The
idea of the "bucket" is something similar to "areas" on the IETF)
For sure there will be a limited number of issues you can handle initially,
so each group will have to make a list and reach some agreement about how
to prioritize the list and target a given number of issues at the top of
Having a separate list will improve the signal to nose ratio since as
activity increases it becomes almost impossible to follow all the
discussions when the only way to have some structure is by trying to
identify the threads.
As said before we'll find a lot of intersections between buckets, so some
work to do would be to define how to handle them and how to create lets say
"interfaces" like for example how you create some interaction and
cooperation between some particular technical coordination matters and
As this effort grows we may find other and better tools, meanwhile we can
steal some of them and ideas from the technical side (IETF for example)
about how to add some structure and order to these important discussions.
By using a linear email list I don't believe we'll have a lot of
productivity and we may be missing (I'm already in catch up mode with so
many messages lately) important contributions.
Divide et impera
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:25 PM, George Sadowsky
<george.sadowsky at gmail.com>wrote:
> Well said, Ben and Jorge. How do we go further into a rough taxonomy of
> the issues under both of the IG subdivisions that you have identified well?
> in particular, how do we define the issue space in a manner that could
> lead to productive dialogue and results to feed into clarifying the IG
> discussion? I would give the internal technical organizational issues
> priority, but I would not want to neglect the social and legal issues that
> are impacted by the Internet.
> Jorge, you seen rather involved in this activity. Why not give it a shot?
> How would you delineate the issues that we should be concentrating on to
> make some progress here? Do you have suggestions regarding the technical
> tools to make discussion with respect to those issues more productive?
> Ben, by the above, I do not mean to exclude you at all from the discussion.
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:26:58 -0600
> > From: Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [I-coordination] Europe at a tipping point?
> > To: "Dr. Ben Fuller" <ben at fuller.na>
> > Cc: "i-coordination at nro.net" <i-coordination at nro.net>
> > Message-ID: <0E4FCB18-AE49-42B9-8C4F-66DB4F74A8A1 at gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >> On Dec 16, 2013, at 1:08 PM, "Dr. Ben Fuller" <ben at fuller.na> wrote:
> >> The comments here are quite appropriate. The Internet is both a massive
> network of networks that requires rigorous technical standards to operate
> effectively and a phenomenon of massive socioeconomic impact that touches
> on many social and legal issues at global, national and local levels. These
> two 'realms' are distinct and at the same time connected to where they have
> the potential to impact each other. Each may require a different way of
> governing as well as strategies to get its decisions implemented. Each may
> require its own set of stakeholders for a multi stakeholder approach.
> > This is IHMO absolutely correct and the main driver of my previous
> comments about the need to split the discussions and focus on the specific
> issues we know exist today, at the macro not micro level, so a viable
> framework can be developed. There are issues that can and must be
> regulated, others that require just coordination and cooperation, but one
> size fits all under the "Governance" word will never work, will never
> > It is like we are trying to make a wall picture of Internet Governance
> using the pieces of multiple puzzles that we put and mixed together in a
> common bowl. We may have an idea on how the final picture has to look like
> but unless we separate the pieces of each puzzle and we put skilled hands
> to work with them we will get nowhere.
> > Meanwhile the shows goes on and we keep finding creative ways on how to
> milk from the I* and other organizations coffers.
> > Regards
> > Jorge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the I-coordination