<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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
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";}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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 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"><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>
<p class="MsoNormal">So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global Internet free from government control, only free from the control of other governments besides itself. <span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:5.25pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:5.25pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">Jeremy:<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">It seems you did not pay very close attention to the deliberations on the bill in the U.S. Congress. Had you listened to Rep. Eshoo, who spoke in opposition to
the bill immediately after its introduction, it was noted that the NTIA, FCC and other USG departments linked to the Obama admin. had expressed concern that the bill’s opposition to “government control” as stated might actually be interpreted to challenge
the U.S. Commerce Department’s IANA contract and control over ICANN. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">Based on this new information, I look forward to a turnaround on your view of the legislation. ;-) Indeed, the bill’s statement of opposition to government control
as a principle might indeed cut both ways. For that reason I am more sympathetic to it than people here seem to be.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And note that US policy is only to "preserve and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model, which continues the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions that we have now are adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the
breadth of Internet governance topics that they cover.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] I agree that talk of “The Multistakeholder Model,” as if it were a single thing and a well-defined, perfect alternative, is grating. But you
and others on this list who now oppose this bear some of the responsibility for elevating this rather empty concept into a full-fledged governance model. Or did I misread your dissertation?
<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and other countries, which is not going
to be helpful in reaching compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this year...<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] What other countries are you talking about? China? Russia? Saudi Arabia? U.A.E.? Iran? What kind of compromise are you talking about? Concessions
to “government control?” Perhaps a bit more government control than we have now in order to keep the Saudis happy?
</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>