<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Ayden, Thanks for your comments. My responses are below.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 18 October 2016 09:38 PM,
Ayden Férdeline wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:NRQssRIc1zTZzEr_DcW5ulnI1jfa3XKAtDYn7uYZ_EzOfg7LM5_0TJmwg22I2z9bZH7E4xsckJwNAhFMArEHyymDUqKagPoAVBz4NkO7fcY=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div>Hi Parminder,<br>
<br>
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic. I agree that it
is appropriate and necessary to critically examine the IANA
stewardship transition. I have read a number of articles
documenting
legitimate criticisms of the transition from different
stakeholder groups. Nonetheless,
I have not heard anyone say that the better solution would have
been for ICANN not to
become more accountable, not to let the stewardship of the IANA
functions
transition from the NTIA to the multistakeholder community. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I do not fully understand your last statement, esp what you are
implying by it. Please clarify. (BTW, you may know that ICANN board
had clearly said that the MS community you refer to is *not*
representative of the global public -- this when there was a
proposal for a membership based ICANN organisational model, which
was rejected by ICANN/ US, even when the 'MS community' wanted that.
So, firstly there was no real community based decision making
process in the IANA transition, and secondly, there is a big
question on the representativeness of the so called 'community' . I
am open to be corrected on these points.)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:NRQssRIc1zTZzEr_DcW5ulnI1jfa3XKAtDYn7uYZ_EzOfg7LM5_0TJmwg22I2z9bZH7E4xsckJwNAhFMArEHyymDUqKagPoAVBz4NkO7fcY=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
But let’s leave
that aside for a moment. There is something in your article that
I wanted to pick up upon, and I think it's important. You
mention the delegation of .xxx and say it is being
challenged in US courts for “for allegedly violating competition
law.” Okay… Can you please explain to me your problem with this?
.xxx is operated by ICM Registry, a company incorporated
in the United States. If ICM has violated US antitrust laws, it
is
subject to the US legal system because ICM is incorporated in
the United States,
not because ICANN is headquartered in the United States. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have no problem with .xxx as a US company being subject to US law,
and being forced to act or not act in particular ways by a US
court.... But if you read about the case you will see that ICANN is
also sued, with three called for causes of action against it.. This
is what I am against -- a US court should not be able to force
ICANN's hand, in terms of its policies and their implementation,
which are of a global nature. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:NRQssRIc1zTZzEr_DcW5ulnI1jfa3XKAtDYn7uYZ_EzOfg7LM5_0TJmwg22I2z9bZH7E4xsckJwNAhFMArEHyymDUqKagPoAVBz4NkO7fcY=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div>Likewise, for your
example of the generic drugs company, if they’re infringing upon
someone else’s
IP, I’m sure they’ll be sued in whatever jurisdiction the
registry for “.genericdrugs”
can be located within.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If, as in my example, .genericdrug is a private closed gTLD, the
registry is almost certainly to be in the country of incorporation
of the company .generic drug... So, there is nothing wrong with this
company being sued in the jurisdiction of its incorporation. As for
" infringing upon someone's else's IP" you must recognise that US
laws on this are often different, and more stringent, that many
other countries. And US and its allies are found to pushing their
laws on to the rest of the world, even when the two parties to a
transacntion are both outside these countries. See
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/dutch-customs-seize-indian-drugs-in-transit-industry-frets-112012300081_1.html">http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/dutch-customs-seize-indian-drugs-in-transit-industry-frets-112012300081_1.html</a>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:NRQssRIc1zTZzEr_DcW5ulnI1jfa3XKAtDYn7uYZ_EzOfg7LM5_0TJmwg22I2z9bZH7E4xsckJwNAhFMArEHyymDUqKagPoAVBz4NkO7fcY=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div> It doesn’t stand to reason to me that a dispute between
two private parties, one of which is not based in and does not
do business in
the United States, is going to be resolved in a US court. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Firstly, I am talking not of private party disputes, but application
of public law, where the state is a party, as also in intellectual
property law. Second, I did not understand why you are saying is
either party has no interest in a country, that country wont take up
the case.... It will, if the other party has a good enough interest.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:NRQssRIc1zTZzEr_DcW5ulnI1jfa3XKAtDYn7uYZ_EzOfg7LM5_0TJmwg22I2z9bZH7E4xsckJwNAhFMArEHyymDUqKagPoAVBz4NkO7fcY=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div>Let’s inverse the
scenario. Say ICANN was headquartered in India. A generic
American drugs
company operates “.genericdrugs” and is sued by, say, a Spanish
competitor.
Would they really file the lawsuit in India? Or would they file
it in the
United States, where the drugs company has its assets? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The equivalence would be not a Spanish plaintiff but an Indian one
(as in my example, is will mostly be US pharma business) -- as to
where they will sue, they will wherever they can have effective
instrument of enforcement - which could be where drug company has
physical assets, or digital assets (a gTLD).... So, if we replace
Spanish plaintiff by Indian, yes, the Indian company will try and
sue in India taking benefit of the leverage that the US company's
digital asset in India - the gTLD - provides, and expecting the
Indian court/ law to be more sympathetic to its cause, than of the
US company...<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:NRQssRIc1zTZzEr_DcW5ulnI1jfa3XKAtDYn7uYZ_EzOfg7LM5_0TJmwg22I2z9bZH7E4xsckJwNAhFMArEHyymDUqKagPoAVBz4NkO7fcY=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think it is useful to remember what the IANA transition was
all about. It
was about empowering the global, multistakeholder community to
oversee the
activities carried out by ICANN. It was not about making sure
ICANN was not
subject to US law. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is your interpretation. The widely endorsed NetMundial
statement says it was about ICANN becoming a "truly global and
international organisation". With that I clearly judge not being
subject to one country's laws, courts, legislature and executive
agencies. I cannot see the term 'truly global and international; in
less than that meaning. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:NRQssRIc1zTZzEr_DcW5ulnI1jfa3XKAtDYn7uYZ_EzOfg7LM5_0TJmwg22I2z9bZH7E4xsckJwNAhFMArEHyymDUqKagPoAVBz4NkO7fcY=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Finally, maybe it's the realist in me,</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dont take it personally, but status quo always presents the argument
of realism - has it ever been not so in history, but still how
history is full of positive changes......<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:NRQssRIc1zTZzEr_DcW5ulnI1jfa3XKAtDYn7uYZ_EzOfg7LM5_0TJmwg22I2z9bZH7E4xsckJwNAhFMArEHyymDUqKagPoAVBz4NkO7fcY=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div>but I’d like to note that attempting to
get “jurisdictional immunities as available to other global
governance bodies
like those of the UN” (to quote your article) sounds very time
consuming and highly resource intensive. </div>
</blockquote>
Ok, if you are serious, let me give you an easy route... There is
this<font color="#000080"><span lang="zxx"><u><a
href="https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/annex9.pdf"> United
States International Organisations Immunities Act <font
color="#000080"><u></u></font></a></u></span></font>A US
presidential decree can make any organisation have the status of an
international organisation and qualify for immunity under it. and
this includes organisations that are not incoporated under
international law. For instance,<em><font style="font-size: 12pt"
size="3"><span style="font-style: normal"> International
Fertilizer and Development Center (IFDC) </span></font></em><font
style="font-size: 12pt" size="3"><span style="font-style: normal">was
first established as a private, nonprofit corporation under the
laws
of the State of Alabama. However, in March 1977, IFDC w</span></font><font
style="font-size: 12pt" size="3">as
designated as a public, nonprofit, international organisation by
US
Presidential Decree 11977, and granted immunities under </font><font
color="#000080"><span lang="zxx"><u><a
href="https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/annex9.pdf"><font
style="font-size: 12pt" size="3">United
States International Organisations Immunities Act</font></a></u></span></font><font
style="font-size: 12pt" size="3">
. See </font><font color="#000080"><span lang="zxx"><u><a
href="https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html"><font
style="font-size: 12pt" size="3">https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html</font></a></u></span></font><font
style="font-size: 12pt" size="3">
</font>
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.8.2 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
a:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style><br>
<br>
Why cant ICANN similarily be given jurisdictional immunity? I would
very much like to hear your and others' comments on this. Thanks. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:NRQssRIc1zTZzEr_DcW5ulnI1jfa3XKAtDYn7uYZ_EzOfg7LM5_0TJmwg22I2z9bZH7E4xsckJwNAhFMArEHyymDUqKagPoAVBz4NkO7fcY=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div>I am just trying to think how we might go about that? So we’d
need 160+
sovereign states to sign an international treaty? </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, every time a treaty is made, 160 + states do it. And they do it
often. Just last week they did one to phase out an important
greenhouse gas. (ICANN jurisdiction issue on the other hand has
been hanging for at least 13 years, and for 13 years people have
been saying how will 160 + countires ever do a treaty - but since
then they have done many of them)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:NRQssRIc1zTZzEr_DcW5ulnI1jfa3XKAtDYn7uYZ_EzOfg7LM5_0TJmwg22I2z9bZH7E4xsckJwNAhFMArEHyymDUqKagPoAVBz4NkO7fcY=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div>You want established a “special
digital bench of the International Court of Justice” and new
“international
laws”? And we – the multistakeholder community – would write
them? </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, I can never think of allowing big business to sit on writing
laws and policies -- that is the death of democracy, and I do not
know whether you care for democracy or not. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:NRQssRIc1zTZzEr_DcW5ulnI1jfa3XKAtDYn7uYZ_EzOfg7LM5_0TJmwg22I2z9bZH7E4xsckJwNAhFMArEHyymDUqKagPoAVBz4NkO7fcY=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div>Who/what gives
us that authority?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Are you asking this question to yourself?? Political authority comes
only form people, and businesses can never have it...<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:NRQssRIc1zTZzEr_DcW5ulnI1jfa3XKAtDYn7uYZ_EzOfg7LM5_0TJmwg22I2z9bZH7E4xsckJwNAhFMArEHyymDUqKagPoAVBz4NkO7fcY=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div> I have not been following the IANA transition from the very
beginning, but I will venture to guess that such an option was
never on the
table… that said, if I am mistaken and there was a missed
opportunity to embark
upon such an ambitious project, feel free to set the record
straight… ;-)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Jursidiciton question was there from the start... They then said,
let us do it in the second post transition phase - and it is being
considered now... <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:NRQssRIc1zTZzEr_DcW5ulnI1jfa3XKAtDYn7uYZ_EzOfg7LM5_0TJmwg22I2z9bZH7E4xsckJwNAhFMArEHyymDUqKagPoAVBz4NkO7fcY=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
Thanks again for starting this conversation and sharing your
Op-Ed. It's good to be able to have this dialogue. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks, and I am happy to take it forward....<br>
<br>
best regards, parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:NRQssRIc1zTZzEr_DcW5ulnI1jfa3XKAtDYn7uYZ_EzOfg7LM5_0TJmwg22I2z9bZH7E4xsckJwNAhFMArEHyymDUqKagPoAVBz4NkO7fcY=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="protonmail_signature_block ">
<div class="protonmail_signature_block-user ">
<div>Ayden Férdeline<br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline"
title="http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline">linkedin.com/in/ferdeline</a><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton
protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite">
<div>-------- Original Message --------<br>
</div>
<div>Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Is the Internet Really Free of
US Control?<br>
</div>
<div>Local Time: 17 October 2016 3:54 PM<br>
</div>
<div>UTC Time: 17 October 2016 14:54<br>
</div>
<div>From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk">m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk</a><br>
</div>
<div>To: parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>,
BestBitsList <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"><bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a>,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a>,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:irp@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org">irp@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:irp@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org"><irp@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org></a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<p>Dear Parminder<br>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the thumbs-up regarding the <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://opendemocracy.net/hri">HRI
series on openDemocracy</a>. And, indeed, debate and action
are not always the same thing. But action and attitudes can be
influenced by debates that take internal, expert-driven issues
out into the wider world. And as the world is increasingly
online, activists (and academics) and policymakers (and
designers) cannot any more expect public fora to be ready and
waiting for topics that are as arcane as they are deeply
political, and politicized. <br>
</p>
<p>To that end, talk is not cheap, and actions do speak as
loudly as words.<br>
</p>
<p>Seeing this issue discussed in a public forum, and not
surprisingly I am advocating this particular one given the
high-quality contributions from people who are on these lists,
and who are re also active in a range of other networks (e.g.
scholarly, policy-based, activist), is becoming increasingly
needed. Politicians are making decisions based on a lack of
access to the nuances of these issues, to put it lightly.<br>
</p>
<p>Might I also have that our students in universities are
becoming increasingly engaged in the implications of a range
of internet governance decisions and interventions by all
stakeholders.... they are seldom addressed in these circles
even as they constitute the leaders of tomorrow.<br>
</p>
<p>Thanks to everyone on this series for committing to bringing
these debates out into the open! <br>
</p>
<p>best<br>
</p>
<p>MF<br>
</p>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/10/2016 15:05, parminder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p><br>
</p>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 17 October 2016 07:16
PM, Marianne Franklin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Dear Parminder, Others (am also copying in the IRPC
list). <br>
</p>
<p>There is clearly still lots to debate, <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes Marianne, but the political moment of reckoning does
not wait for all debates to conclude - debates that has now
been happening for more than 10 years. The jurisdiction
question is being considered formally "right now" in the
transition process, as it is called, In a few months it will
be formally declared that the global multi stakeholder
community - which is supposed to includes me and you, and
all the debators -- have concluded by full or rough
consensus that the current jurisdictional status remains the
best bet for ICANN. The 'decision' will be touted in our
name. IGC 11 years ago took a political position in the
middle of debates - political activism requires that. 11
years hence the debates cannot be less mature then they were
before - I am just wondering, what happened meanwhile...
Well, isnt that too an important question by itself to ask,
and explore, for activists and academics alike. Just
clarifying what was the accent of my posting. Meanwhile,
yes, more debates and articles and comments continue to
remain welcome, and shd keep coming. But maybe, civil
society's job includes some political role too!<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Meanwhile I do recommend to everyone to read this
excellent series of IG related articles published in
OpenDemocracy and coordinated by Marianne. <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri</a>
. Debates, academic exercises, and political action must all
go together. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>best regards<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>parminder <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>on the macro level of past and future ownership and
control of the strategically important aspects of the
internet's infrastructure (content being another matter
altogether). To date the debates about ICANN, positions
for/against and all other shades, have occurred on lists
with well informed, and committed participants. <br>
</p>
<p>To date there is little out there for an informed, wider
public. This is why comments on the <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaLiberties/pranesh-prakash/jurisdiction-taboo-topic-at-icann">Prakash
piece</a>, or indeed others on this page that may relate
to the spectrum of issues that keeps all these lists alive
and actively arriving in our in=boxes, would help inform
that wider audience. <br>
</p>
<p>It is a key reason why I have been working with
openDemocracy to present these issues to a wider
readership so all comments welcome to the ICANN piece. <br>
</p>
<p>Other articles, including a critical analysis of a
UK-based initiative for digital rights by Paul Bernal
available at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri</a>.
<br>
</p>
<p>warm wishes<br>
</p>
<p>MF<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/10/2016 14:07, parminder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p><br>
</p>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 17 October 2016
05:20 PM, Marianne Franklin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Dear Parminder<br>
</p>
<p>Thanks for sending over this piece in a growing
literature on ICANN and it future. <br>
</p>
<p>Just to note that Pranesh's less than celebratory
analysis for the ICANN transition has been published
on the openDemocracy series, Human Rights and the
Internet, at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaLiberties/pranesh-prakash/jurisdiction-taboo-topic-at-icann"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaLiberties/pranesh-prakash/jurisdiction-taboo-topic-at-icann</a>.
<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<div>Thanks Marianne,<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, absolutely not at all celebratory! I had read it
a few months back, and should have had it in my mind
when I made that comment. But then, isnt it surprising
that when two of the very few CS groups in India
consider that not much has happened with the so called
'transition' in terms of loosening of US control over
ICANN, there is simply no murmurs in the CS community
globally to actually take this issue up - in a political
manner, like making a statement and so on. I may repeat
what I have said so many tomes earlier - in all the
multistakeholder meetings that I saw organised in India
in the transition processes it was always concluded that
there are two key issues to sort out - an 'external'
oversight mechanism, and jurisdiction issue. What we
have is an oversight which is hardly external, and the
jurisdiction issue is being completely buried. But still
it seems that everyone -- more or less -- is just
celebrating the 'transition' with no critical take being
adopted. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As Pranesh's article points out, seeking a host
country agreement or in other words jurisdictional
immunity for ICANN from the US was the demand of
Internet Governance Caucus in 2005. The all round
social- political importance of the domain name system
has only greatly enhanced in the last 10 years, and so
the US's jurisdictional control over it should be ever
less acceptable -- but why is no major civil society
group today able to get up and say the same thing which
IGC said and asked for in 2005? Especially when a
process is actually taking place which is formally
examining the jurisdiction question. I sometimes
participate in that ICANN WG on jurisdiction, where
every effort is on to bury this question - and i finds
almost no civil society voice there. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>People here may want to ponder this question - has
the US stranglehold on the IG discourse actually
tightened since then - meaning WSIS in 2005? Or perhaps
there could be other reasons, which I did not think of,
and others can enlighten me on. (not addressed to you
Marianne :), it is general)<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Parminder <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>PS: Excuse me to cc this to IGC list, where a similar
discussion is on... Those who respond may exercise
discretion whether they want to respond to both elists
or one of them. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p><br>
</p>
<p>best <br>
</p>
<p>MF<br>
</p>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/10/2016 15:48,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-------- Forwarded Message -------- <br>
</div>
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0"
cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap"
valign="BASELINE">Subject: <br>
</th>
<td>Is the Internet Really Free of US Control?<br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap"
valign="BASELINE">Date: <br>
</th>
<td>Sat, 15 Oct 2016 20:11:26 +0530<br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap"
valign="BASELINE">From: <br>
</th>
<td>parminder <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"><parminder@itforchange.net></a><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap"
valign="BASELINE">To: <br>
</th>
<td><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a>,
< <"
bestbits\""@lists.bestbits.net><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<p><span class="font" style="font-family:Verdana">Hi
All</span><br>
</p>
<p><span class="font" style="font-family:Verdana">I
wrote this commentary piece in the Economic and
Political Weekly of India on ICANN's oversight
transition. For such an important and
multi-faceted event, it is surprising that I
have come across no article that is other than
absolutely celebratory about it, and catches
properly the different nuances that are
involved. Such a monochromatic discourse in the
global IG space is not a good indication. There
is an especial lack of views from a progressive
and social justice perspective, and from the
geopolitical South, both of which I have tried
to catch in this brief article. </span><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h1 style="font-weight: normal" class="western"><b><span
style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size">Internet
Governance: Is the Internet Really Free of US
Control?</span></b><br>
</h1>
<p>"The recent decision of the United States
government to cede its control over the internet’s
naming and addressing system to the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN), a US-based international non-profit body,
is heralded as a significant step towards the
globalisation of internet’s core infrastructure.
But with ICANN having no special jurisdictional
immunity and subject to the whims of the judicial
and legislative branches of the US government as
well as many of its executive agencies, the
decision seems more symbolic than meaningful."<br>
</p>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.epw.in/journal/2016/42/web-exclusives/internet-governance.html"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.epw.in/journal/2016/42/web-exclusives/internet-governance.html</a><br>
</p>
<div>Comments are welcome.<br>
</div>
<div>parminder <br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<pre cols="72" class="moz-signature">--
Marianne Franklin, PhD
Professor of Global Media and Politics
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Goldsmiths (University of London)
Department of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 207 9197072
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"><m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk></a>
@GloComm
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/</a>
Chair of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)
Steering Committee/Former Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition )
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.internetrightsandprinciples.org" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">www.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a>
@netrights
Special Series Editor, Human Rights and the Internet
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri</a>
Digital Dilemmas: Power, Resistance and the Internet (Oxford University Press)
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://global.oup.com/academic/product/digital-dilemmas-9780199982707?cc=nl&lang=en&q=Digital%20dilemmas&tab=reviews#" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://global.oup.com/academic/product/digital-dilemmas-9780199982707?cc=nl&lang=en&q=Digital%20dilemmas&tab=reviews#</a>
Championing Human Rights on the Internet (I-VI)
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/marianne-franklin/championing-human-rights-on-internet-part-six-summing-up-too-much-or-not-enough" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/marianne-franklin/championing-human-rights-on-internet-part-six-summing-up-too-much-or-not-enough</a>
“What does (the Study of) World Politics Sound Like?”
co-authored with Matt Davies in World Politics and Popular Culture: Theories, Methods, Pedagogies
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/22/edited-collection-popular-culture-and-world-politics/" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/22/edited-collection-popular-culture-and-world-politics/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<pre cols="72" class="moz-signature">--
Marianne Franklin, PhD
Professor of Global Media and Politics
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Goldsmiths (University of London)
Department of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 207 9197072
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"><m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk></a>
@GloComm
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/</a>
Chair of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)
Steering Committee/Former Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition )
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.internetrightsandprinciples.org" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">www.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a>
@netrights
Special Series Editor, Human Rights and the Internet
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri</a>
Digital Dilemmas: Power, Resistance and the Internet (Oxford University Press)
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://global.oup.com/academic/product/digital-dilemmas-9780199982707?cc=nl&lang=en&q=Digital%20dilemmas&tab=reviews#" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://global.oup.com/academic/product/digital-dilemmas-9780199982707?cc=nl&lang=en&q=Digital%20dilemmas&tab=reviews#</a>
Championing Human Rights on the Internet (I-VI)
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/marianne-franklin/championing-human-rights-on-internet-part-six-summing-up-too-much-or-not-enough" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/marianne-franklin/championing-human-rights-on-internet-part-six-summing-up-too-much-or-not-enough</a>
“What does (the Study of) World Politics Sound Like?”
co-authored with Matt Davies in World Politics and Popular Culture: Theories, Methods, Pedagogies
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/22/edited-collection-popular-culture-and-world-politics/" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/22/edited-collection-popular-culture-and-world-politics/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<pre cols="72" class="moz-signature">--
Marianne Franklin, PhD
Professor of Global Media and Politics
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Goldsmiths (University of London)
Department of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 207 9197072
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"><m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk></a>
@GloComm
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/</a>
Chair of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)
Steering Committee/Former Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition )
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.internetrightsandprinciples.org" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">www.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a>
@netrights
Special Series Editor, Human Rights and the Internet
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri</a>
Digital Dilemmas: Power, Resistance and the Internet (Oxford University Press)
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://global.oup.com/academic/product/digital-dilemmas-9780199982707?cc=nl&lang=en&q=Digital%20dilemmas&tab=reviews#" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://global.oup.com/academic/product/digital-dilemmas-9780199982707?cc=nl&lang=en&q=Digital%20dilemmas&tab=reviews#</a>
Championing Human Rights on the Internet (I-VI)
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/marianne-franklin/championing-human-rights-on-internet-part-six-summing-up-too-much-or-not-enough" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.opendemocracy.net/marianne-franklin/championing-human-rights-on-internet-part-six-summing-up-too-much-or-not-enough</a>
“What does (the Study of) World Politics Sound Like?”
co-authored with Matt Davies in World Politics and Popular Culture: Theories, Methods, Pedagogies
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/22/edited-collection-popular-culture-and-world-politics/" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/22/edited-collection-popular-culture-and-world-politics/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>