<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Oct 26, 2011, at 00:31 , Ian Peter wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<title>Re: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4</title>
<div><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">At my last count there were over 140 countries, and I would expect them all to have the opportunity to be involved. That’s why involving the UN makes a lot of sense.<br></span></font></div></blockquote></div><br><div>Involving governments in the management of Internet is one of the worst ideas, ever.</div><div><br></div><div>Let me try one more time to explain why:</div><div><br></div><div>1. Internet is managed and operated by humans. Those humans happen to live somewhere, therefore subject to some Government's regime. Thus, Governments are already involved. Indirectly.</div><div><br></div><div>2. Internet management is (at least what the purpose of ICANN Is) strictly technical in nature. Sure, it involves many "policy" issues, but you need to understand that the trouble here lies in the translation of the word "policy" into most languages. It certainly does not translate in to "politics". (Although in Bulgarian for example, the word is the same)</div><div><br></div><div>3. Internet is pretty much private network. Governments did not build it, including the USG. It was built by enthusiasts for the most part and in fact, however strange this sounds today, against the wishes of most governments (possibly, including the USG).</div><div><br></div><div>4. The role of governments in all this is to police the outcome and they pretty much already do it. Outside of the Internet management.</div><div><br></div><div>I have the strong opinion, trough observing the developments trough the years, that the current absurd ICANN state we have is largely because ICANN tried to play with governments. Then later, they started refusing to cooperate with Governments, because the Governments insisted on their policing role and ICANN already think they are oh so great.</div><div><br></div><div>One of the problems getting Governments directly involved in Internet management is cost. Until now, Governments ignored this "Internet" thing, and therefore do not have the required budget to participate. Having them to deal with this in a more serious sense would require great restructuring in many Governments, that I frankly do not see happening anytime soon.</div><div>For those who will claim that some Governments are already serious about the Internet, I will offer this: come on - these Governments actually rely on a well functioning private-sector Internet management and they just spend enough effort to voice their concerns -- expecting that those reasonable sensed individuals will understand and help.</div><div>But what will happen if these same who already manage Internet are removed and Governments have to handle it? Trust me, complete disaster… and this is why it has not happened yet.</div><div><br></div><div>Daniel</div><div><br></div><div>PS: Don't get me wrong. I don't have problem with Governments fully engaged -- but I just don't see it happening. Not in the next 20 years.</div></body></html>