<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Courier New \;color\:\#1F497D";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">Well, I was asking for a specific example of an Internet governance policy that got better from a CS point of view as more governments got involved. And I don’t see
one.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org]
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] ></span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif"">First,
give me an example of what specific policies would be better if the UN were involved and the number of states were broadened. Just one would do.
<br>
</span></i></b><br>
There is a whole literature full of examples. Internet governance as a field of study in international relations is based around regime theory. It is fundamental to this theory that states will come together and cooperate in a regime even where this does
not always coincide directly with their domestic interests. The existence of the regime itself has a value which counterbalances domestic considerations.<br>
<br>
I won't go into the theory here because you probably know it better than me, and as far as the specific examples you've asked for I can only speculate, but don't consider it implausible that if a new instrument were agreed that outlawed state-sponsored cyberterrorism,
this would influence domestic policy on its use amongst member states - just as the Chemical Weapons Convention has done.<br>
<br>
Let me be frank. I don't like the CIRP proposal as it exists now. It has major problems. One of those you've raised yourself, that governments are represented twice - once on their own account, and again through the intergovernmental advisory group. We
would need to do a lot to get this proposal into shape.<br>
<br>
Ideally, I think we should be asking that each of the advisory groups should have a veto of any recommendation that goes forward. (In a way, this is a variation of the consociational model that I advocated in my doctorate and since.) This will narrow the
range of issues on which the CIRP can produce recommendations, but it will also avoid the worst dangers of this new body producing a rights-infringing document on Internet security or the like.<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] That would indeed be an improvement. Good luck with getting that out of the Indian, Brazilian or SA states, much
less the g77 as a whole. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>