Dear Parminder,

Please see inline:

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 11:59 AM parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:

Yes, Jorge, your highlighted question says it all.

D. Should the IANA Stewardship Transition be unwound?

This represented the problem statement for the jurisdiction sub-group, which got internally and externally high-jacked to cannibalise its own mandate and produce fictitious ones in its place.

You are measuring the progress of the Transition/Accountability processes

an unrealistic yardstick with markings in miles, not inches, and with a clock that clicks way too fast. And your comments

, intended or unintended, sound a little

polemic against half the world. Yes, certain questions remain unresolved, the transition wasn't as dramatic or transformatory as ideally

fancied

, but it went well, the transition happened, we could begin to think of ICANN as more global than before. This is a global process with intricate concerns and challenges, facing a few multilateral actors from

all corners

alike who take time to develop faith in

this

new process. It takes time

for this process to make process

But wouldn't take as long as it takes in intergovernmental processes.

It is just a pity that even in the 21st century some people/ groups do not value their political freedom as one might expect them to, and are happy to remain dependent and servile.

What a dishonour to the visionaries and revolutionaries of yester-years and yester-centuries who made such sacrifices for political freedoms -- little they knew that it will be valued so less by those for whom they make sacrifices.

There are as many or far more today than there were in "yester-years" and "yester-centuries"

. Are you implying that there was goodness during yester-centuries and that the visions and values of yester-years are disrespected or non-existent today? It would be grossly incorrect to think so.

Personally, it hurts even more that people and groups from post-colonial countries are ready to stay colonised, if in new manners, even when they know that they do not and never will occupy a place in the US-led order equal even to US's close allies like the EU and some other, even as the latter are themselves denied equality and freedom in this case.

I know that many will quote in defence expedience of practicality, and may be it does constrain some government members perhaps (but still really much more could be done), but what about those who professedly stand independently and directly for global public interest, and have no obvious constraints?

By not giving a strong and clear principles-based view on the jurisdiction question, whether it got finally "accepted" or not

"finally" ? It is an ongoing process. And a open process. What stops the Community from taking up further work on improvements?

, this so call global multistakeholder community has simply confirmed its geo-political partisanship... It has driven another nail in the coffin of a possible global Internet/digital order that was seen as globally fair and just and thus could perhaps have dissuaded, or at least limited, the new cold war kind of splits in digital global order that are increasingly imminent.

On the altar of narrow interests, short term gains and expediency has been sacrificed the immense political power of fairness, justice and equality, that still IMHO is our best best, together and even separately, for each of us.

On the contrary, it is how you perceive the progress of the process. I think narrow interest are weaker after these processes than before.

Sivasubramanian M

parminder

On Monday 11 June 2018 08:13 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear all

I guess that this notice of inquiry may be of interest to many participants in this group…

Kind regards

Jorge

De : InternetPolicy [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces@elists.isoc.org] De la part de Ayden Férdeline
Envoyé : mercredi 6 juin 2018 10:24
À : ISOC INTERNETPOLICY <internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org>
Objet : [Internet Policy] NTIA Notice of Inquiry on International Internet Policy Priorities

The NTIA is seeking comments until 2 July 2018 on its future Internet policy priorities; I have pasted some of their questions below. Those to do with the value and effectiveness of multistakeholderism and the IGF might be of particular interest to those on this list.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline

--

A. Does the multistakeholder approach continue to support an environment for the internet to grow and thrive? If so, why? If not, why not?

B. Are there public policy areas in which the multistakeholder approach works best? If yes, what are those areas and why? Are there areas in which the multistakeholder approach does not work effectively? If there are, what are those areas and why?

C. Are the existing accountability structures within multistakeholder internet governance sufficient? If not, why not? What improvements can be made?

D. Should the IANA Stewardship Transition be unwound? If yes, why and how? If not, why not?

E. What should be NTIA’s priorities within ICANN and the GAC?

F. Are there any other DNS related activities NTIA should pursue? If yes, please describe.

G. Are there barriers to engagement at the IGF? If so, how can we lower these barriers?

H. Are there improvements that can be made to the IGF’s structure, organization, planning processes, or intercessional work programs? If so, what are they?

I. What, if any, action can NTIA take to help raise awareness about the IGF and foster stakeholder engagement?

J. What role should multilateral organizations play in internet governance?
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community