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@internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
In message <52894B24.2060309@inex.ie>, at 23:03:00 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Nick Hilliard <nick@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