Subject: Re: [iucg] [IANAtransition] MS model

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:11:42 +0200

At 14:16 07/04/2014, James Seng wrote:
>For the first time at Singapore meeting, the Chinese delegates as a 
>whole are more open in their comments, if anyone cares to notice. 
>This is partly thanks to the effort of Fadi (and others) who has 
>been persuading the Chinese governments on the "multistakeholder" 
>concept and that such ideas are taken some foothold.Â
>
>So to correctly put it, the official position taken by Chinese @ 
>Singapore ICANN meeting is:
>"The Chinese welcome the US NTIA Intents to transition key Internet 
>Domain Name functions"
>
>If you have read the other statements made by the Chinese delegates 
>(the officials one), and if you read behind the lines, they have 
>also more or less acknowledge the multistakeholder model and that 
>they are willing to work within the model to ensure its interest is been heard.

This is an extremely good news. Thank you for bringing it. Now, upon 
your experience, why are they not participating so much to the IETF 
process you advocate? Has this to do with the process itself (Areas, 
BoF, charter, WG Chairmanship, multiplicty of RFCs, decision process, 
capacity of the leadership as for RFC 6852, appeal mechanism, etc.) 
or cultural as working by mail, in English, or more fundamentally the 
way they would concieve RFCs, etc. ? For example, in this debate 
which concerns something they approve, why are you, as a foreigner, 
the one who let us know it? What/How do you think we should adapt to 
ease the things for them and for us to benefit from their experience 
and point of view?

jfc

---

From: Pranesh Prakash <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:48:59 -0400

Jefsey <[email-masked]> [2014-04-007 17:11:42 +0200]:
>> whole are more open in their comments, if anyone cares to notice. This
>> is partly thanks to the effort of Fadi (and others) who has been
>> persuading the Chinese governments on the "multistakeholder" concept
>> and that such ideas are taken some foothold.Â
>>
>> (the officials one), and if you read behind the lines, they have also
>> more or less acknowledge the multistakeholder model and that they are
>> willing to work within the model to ensure its interest is been heard.
>
> capacity of the leadership as for RFC 6852, appeal mechanism, etc.) or
> cultural as working by mail, in English, or more fundamentally the way
> they would concieve RFCs, etc. ? For example, in this debate which
> concerns something they approve, why are you, as a foreigner, the one
> who let us know it? What/How do you think we should adapt to ease the
> things for them and for us to benefit from their experience and point of
> view?

These are extremely important questions, and I do hope some of the more 
experienced people on this mailing list attempt some answers.

If these aren't answered, we might as well agree that the "global 
multistakeholder community" we're really talking about is the "North 
American (and perhaps Western/Northern European) multistakeholder 
community".

ICANN has at least done some amount of surveying of where in the world 
it receives WG involvement from.  Have IETF/IESG ever done any such 
analysis?  Has ISOC ever done any such analysis?  If so, could folks 
please point to URLs?  Thanks!

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash