Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jari,
At 11:17 19-11-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
>However, while the site is coming up, it would 
>be useful to think about the kinds of things 
>that could be usefully discussed. There are 
>obviously many specific issues which belong to 
>already existing organisations. Such as protocol 
>parameter registry topic being an IETF/IAB 
>matter, TLD assignments an ICANN matter, etc. 
>There's little reason to create new places to 
>discuss such topics. On the other hand, it would 
>probably be good to have a place to discuss the 
>overall situation, relate work in different 
>organisations to each other, build more 
>co-operation, etc. What are your thoughts on 
>this? What topics do you think need additional attention?

According to (unconfirmed) news articles the CEO 
of ICANN mentioned that there's now a "coalition" 
of the "I*" groups (ICANN, IETF, etc), big-name 
companies such as Disney, and governments such as 
Brazil, focused on creating multistakeholder 
solutions to problems ­ such as spam and cyber-bullying.

I have participated in the antispam discussions 
for some time.  I don't recall seeing anyone from 
Disney participating in the discussions 
[1].  According to ICANN there is growing 
pressures to address issues outside its sphere of 
responsibility as a motivating factor in forming 
a high-level panel.  From an IETF perspective I 
have some doubts about whether it is a good idea 
for the IETF to join a coalition where the IETF 
Chair would be signing mission creep [2] statements.

The IETF has been perceived as neutral.  It can 
take a position for or against the interests of 
Country X if there is consensus for that.   I 
don't think that the IETF leaders should rely on 
the consent of the governed in taking such a 
position or create a fait accompli [3].

The IETF leaders [4] have been silent about the 
topic in the subject line; I am excluding the 
help comments about the 1net.org web site.  That 
is not a good omen for openness.

Regards,
-sm

1. discussions which are open
2. the gradual broadening of the original 
objectives of a mission or organization
3. something that has been done and cannot be changed
4. except Jari