[IANAtransition] Input from the Government of India

Sivasubramanian M isolatedn at gmail.com
Thu May 8 15:03:35 UTC 2014


I have called for quick inputs from Members of Internet Society India
Chennai:

http://isocindiachennai.org/?p=1585

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>



On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

> Please see embedded comments below.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Richard
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ianatransition-bounces at icann.org
> > [mailto:ianatransition-bounces at icann.org]On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> > Sent: jeudi, 8. mai 2014 01:06
> > To: Seun Ojedeji
> > Cc: ianatransition at icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [IANAtransition] Input from the Government of India
> >
> >
> > On 08/05/2014 06:45, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> > > Hello Ergys,
>
> SNIP
>
> > >
> > > - I oppose a legislative oversight in this process (which will
> > require some
> > > level of  government making decision, besides it's against requirement)
> >
> > I agree. Whatever "proper international legislative authority"
> > really means,
> > it is not necessary: the Internet has succeeded brilliantly without it,
>
> Yes, but mobile has grown faster, even though mobile is governed more
> traditionally.  Internet has had a very significant impact in developed
> countries, but mobile has probably had a greater impact (at least to date)
> in developing countries.
>
> > so this is an experimental observation,
>
> The current Internet governance arrangements have not been able to address
> to everyone's satisfaction the three priority issues identified in 2004,
> namely the asymmetric role of the US government, relatively higher costs
> for
> developing countries, and security (which at the time included spam and now
> also includes mass surveillance).  As a result, Internet governance
> discussions have continued for 10 years in a variety of forums, and there
> is
> no end in sight.
>
> How come we don't discuss GSM governance (apart from specific issues such
> as
> termination rates or roaming or frequency auctions)?
>
> > not an opinion.
>
> I beg to differ.  Some believe that the current Internet governance
> arrangements have favored (or at least not prevented) trends that are
> problematic, see the first part of the Just Net Coalition Delhi Declaration
> at:
>
>   http://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration
>
> >And while one can
> > hardly be against the principle of representative democracy for
> individual
> > countries, running it on a global scale with several billion voters is
> > not an option.
>
> Well, it does seem to work at least to some extent in some areas such as
> maritime and air transport.
>
> But I do agree that it does not work in other areas, such as climate change
> mitigation.
>
> >So we arrive at the multi-stakeholder approach, which
> > essentially excludes traditional legislative authority as a solution.
>
> And in effect hands things over either to a small group of technologists or
> to private companies.  But only for certain issues, because copyright,
> defamation, etc. continue to be handled by traditional governance
> mechanisms.  And does not, at least at present, exclude the impact of US
> legislation and US executive branch actions.
>
> >
> > > - Following the Tunis agenda is not acceptable.
>
> The Tunis Agenda is a long and complex document.  Could you specify more
> precisly which parts of it you consider to be unacceptable?
>
> >
> > Certainly not; that is one of the good things about the NETmundial
> > result, after all.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this.  The Netmundial outcome reaffirmed the
> roles and responsibilities outlined in the Tunis Agenda, even as it called
> for flexible application of those roles and responsibilies.  See the Just
> Net Coalition statement regarding Netmundial at:
>
>   http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-response-netmundial-outcome-document
>
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
> >
> >    Brian Carpenter
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > sent from Google nexus 4
> > > kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> > > On 7 May 2014 19:14, "Ergys Ramaj" <ergys.ramaj at icann.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Attached.
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> ianatransition mailing list
> > >> ianatransition at icann.org
> > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ianatransition mailing list
> > > ianatransition at icann.org
> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
> > _______________________________________________
> > ianatransition mailing list
> > ianatransition at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> ianatransition mailing list
> ianatransition at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/attachments/20140508/b194c885/attachment.html>


More information about the ianatransition mailing list