[cooperation-wg] Internet governance

Thanks for sharing.

I would echo and amplify Nick's statement. While those acclimated to the
"big meeting multi-stakeholder Internet governance model" have a clear
grasp on its utility, and its boundaries, this isn't well understood even a
few feet outside this world. As in, I recently explained it to a number of
veteran engineers who, while familiar with NANOG and other such venues, had
no real knowledge or understanding of IGF, ITU, et al.. This experience has
been repeated enough that I take it to be indicative of a broader lack of
understanding. Illuminating this more clearly, even if it's repetition,
could only help.

As a first step, it would make sense to highlight how governments (EC,
here) can participate. And not simply how, but that their participation is
crucial and incredibly valuable. What I read here (and in many similar
statements) is a concern that there are areas of policy "that we're as
government are supposed to control." There's a worry that by legitimizing
some vague process they cede control, and this threatens the relevance of
office and (of course) dreams of personal success. This may seem
"touchy-feely," but I believe it's fundamental to understanding the stakes,
and how to influence.

I think it would also be salutary to shift framing a bit: emphasizing that
"multistakeholderism" (a term that has got to go, btw) isn't simply a
series of large meetings that cost a lot of money to attend and whose
impact can't be easily quantified. M'holderism is *a model for engagement
that recognizes a foundational truth about the Internet: it doesn't' work
in a way that serves the world without the participation of a number of
disparate constituents. O*perators, governments, end-users, software
developers, standards bodies...on and on...all of them must have a voice in
order to ensure productive decision making. Engaging all of these parties
in discussion and debate is messy and unprecedented, but without engagement
we risk decisions that, through ignorance or malice or both, misunderstand
fundamental properties and thus endanger what we're all working to
preserve.

Gordon, do you have a sense of who is already working with the commission
to raise these and similar concerns, and whether (and where) added input
from the RIPE community could be helpful?

Cheers,
Meredith



On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Roland Perry <
roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <52894B24.2060309 at inex.ie>, at 23:03:00 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013,
> Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie> writes
>
>  That has been the IGF mission statement, and everyone involved's
>>> understanding, since 2006. I'm sorry no-one brought you up to speed
>>> before
>>> they sent you to Bali. I hope it didn't hamper your mission at all.
>>>
>>
>> I knew well in advance, but there's a huge difference between knowing
>> something in theory and realising first-hand how important it is in
>> practice.
>>
>
> I have a "general theory of big meetings" that the first one (of any
> particular flavour) you go to unprepared is always a bit of a surprise, and
> you spend much of the time finding out how it all works, who is in charge,
> and what the mechanisms are for making a meaningful contribution.
>
> Quite a bit of that experience can be passed on to future novices, and
> thanks for doing so.
> --
> Roland Perry
>
>


-- 

Meredith Whittaker
Program Manager, Google Research
Google NYC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20131118/e541bc63/attachment.html>