On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Just to start, there is no clear consensus of what "Internet Governance" means and entails. You are correct. The term "Internet Governance" is a term of art, and a poor one at that. It is the term that governments like to use, and in fact, in 2005 several of them got together at the United Nations-initiated World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and came up with the following definition: "Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." <http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf> I happen to hate the term "Internet Governance", but its use has become a common as shorthand for the discussions of governments expressing their needs and desires with respect to the Internet, its related institutions, and civil society. It might not be necessary for the IETF to be involved (if it so chooses), but I'm not certain that leaving it to ISOC would make sense if/when the discussion moves into areas such as structures for managing delegated registries of IETF-defined protocols (i.e. protocols, names, numbers) > In your particular case as President and CEO of ARIN, clearly you "lead" that organization but it does not make you representative of the Internet or its users. I can't find anywhere in the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation of ARIN the word "Governance." > > Nobody will deny any of the alleged "leaders" to participate in any meeting, conference, event, in their individual capacities, but NONE has any representation of the whole Internet. Full agreement there... No one has any representation of the entire Internet, and we should oppose the establishment of any structures that might aspire to such. > Do we really want to create a "government" for the Internet ? How do you propose to select people to be representatives for all the sectors ? I do not, and expect others on this list feel the same. However, it is likely that more folks need to participate to make sure that such things don't happen. > And in particular how do you propose to select an IETF representative and who/how it's going to give her/him its mandate to represent the organization on other forums ? That is the essential question of this discussion, and hence the reason for my email. I'd recommend that the IETF select leaders whose integrity you trust, you provide them with documents of whatever principles the IETF considers important and how it views it relations with other Internet institutions (could be developed via Internet Drafts) and ask them to report back as frequently as possible. Alternatively, the IETF could opt to not participate in such discussions at all, and deal with any developments after the fact (an option only if there is sufficient faith that the current models, structures, and relationships of the IETF are inviolate.) FYI, /John