<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Thanks for this Keith. It is wonderful to have a reasoned discussion
on this matter for a change. <br>
<br>
As said previously, when critics wrongly accused some of us of
wanting to break the internet, if there is a legitimate form of
governance that reflects the international character of the internet
then it should not be a problem at all with incremental or radical
changes to governance of CIR. In that sense I am, as McT pointed
out, a 'single rooter'. One should however expect the development of
'extreme' positions when democratic discussion is foreclosed. As you
sow, so shall you reap. It is not nice being in a position to push
the 'left' position because the centre is so far to the right... and
it is not something I would like to do at all as it is just about
desperately creating spaces instead of doing something useful, as
many lurkers on this list could possibly attest. <br>
<br>
Everyone is grateful for US technological investment and innovation,
often paid for ordinary people in the US and serviced by USers and
many many non-USers whom the technical community welcomes (one place
in the world where 'fresh off the boat' is a good thing, although
increasingly less so in places like Wisconsin). Reasonably fair
(double standards rather than extreme double standards in other
words) arrangements can go a long way to taking the sting out of
dependency.<br>
<br>
I do not take the simplistic notion of government bad. Here I take
my US history from the early American Institutionalists, like
Alexander Hamilton, Frederich List, Richard Ely, Daniel Raymon(?),
who focussed on the important matter of the state and the<a
href="http://www.othercanon.org/"> commonweal<a>.</a></a> Of
course one can understand the anti-government position in the US,
but only to the extent that it is consistent, as taxes are high and
regulations/regulators, <a
href="http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/06/u-s-regulatory-system-stymied-by-special-interests/">many
of which are pro-corporate rather than pro-people</a>, intrusive.
From the outside, this is the cost of being the world's policeman
(and for some the premier aggressor in the world). So government's
role is crucial as it is a site of contestation for the national
polity. As can be seen national US control despite its safeguards is
insufficient after the NSA saga, and perhaps even Americans may
benefit from some international oversight (but one cannot really do
that with Bolton at the UN nor the new UN Amb who is Obama's amb.
elect despite the practised dominance the US shows at almost all UN
agencies... ). <br>
<br>
The issue is that democratic discussion on this matter has been
blocked in some obvious and devious means. This invites bad faith,
whether others think this is justified or not. This is an impediment
that I hope the likes of you and Curran, Perry, Roland, etc can
accomodate instead of what we have had, and which I characterise as
'wild west cowboy' management of this issue.<br>
<br>
The issue of multistakeholderism is also important. Combined with
the active generation of 'bad faith' the bamboozling of those who
ask for disciplines on the role of corporates in this process to
secure the public interest is enlightening, and also does not behove
us to many of its proponents - simply because of the 'fair and foul'
treatment metered out on this list and in UN processes. Conflicts of
interest are recognised as a problem elsewhere, especially in areas
where technical people typically have these conflicts otherwise they
would not have developed the skills. It can be managed, but not if
it is a non-issue. <br>
<br>
I am on the record that even ICANN in some instances was more
progressive in incremental change than some of their 'usual'
defenders in this space. Again, it breeds bad faith, especially
since we know how powerful these civil society players are/can be
and how powerfully they intimidate, seek to discredit and
marginalise particularly certain Third World positions. It is the
amount of venom that confirms for us the importance of this matter,
as I am sure will become more and more evident as the NSA saga
unfolds in all its unconstitutional glory. And I am personally
certain that the CIR politics I have seen is about the intimate
association between state and the private sector acting in concert
(in all the Hannah Arendt banality of evil, simply to make a buck;
or to retain US comparative advantage in this field, which is an
acceptable national position, but is not global) while we cannot
even get public interest issues as an agenda item without a public
spat. <br>
<br>
Personally with ICANN coming to Africa in July, I wait to see what
will happen in terms of resource flows and capability transfers as
Africans are at overall a much lower technical base (ecosystem wise,
not necessarily individually). It may be something useful, where the
hegemon actually shows <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige">noblesse
oblige</a>, or it will be creating loyal vested interests to
neutralise opposition while monopolising the local technical polity.
Incremental change and noblesse oblige can go together, but this is
a conservative position (i.e. privilege with duty) not a market
based one (which is revolutionary cos the market can take you
through a housing bubble all the way through to a bailout).
Generally Africans typically get a bad deal not only because of
internal conditions...<br>
<br>
Contrary to what some may think, we know the score, recognise the
powerful forces at work, but insist on believing in the reality of
choice: even if we are mocked, scandalised and belittled as human
beings. The current saga is showing how parochial the US type
analysis is for dealing with these matters - shock at what is
happening for some USers, while it is nothing new for many in the
South (and in the North). Some perspectivism may not be remiss.<br>
<br>
When the safety valve of dialogue is blocked in a non-binding forum
like the IGF, I am sure you can understand how this will be
offensive to a democratic minded sensibility. But glad to hear from
you and to have this kind of discussion. I repeat the above so you
can appreciate better why things are as they are, and hope, under
Norbert's and Sala's able coordination, we can deal with this in a
way that has at least some noblesse oblige rather than having us as
supplicants on bended knees as others who block this issue typically
prefer. We do recognise our subjection, but object to it being
flaunted in our faces. <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013/06/14 11:11 AM, Keith Davidson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51BAD042.3000700@internetnz.net.nz"
type="cite">On 14/06/2013 7:50 p.m., Riaz K Tayob wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Techincally I have to defer.
<br>
<br>
The problem of unimportance is belied by the variously vicious
and
<br>
polite objections (I can provide details but it does not matter
now)
<br>
from this list to WSIS and IGF where we have the proverbial
'dogs of
<br>
war' set upon us every time we raise this matter...?
<br>
<br>
My view is that this is a political rather than technical
matter...
<br>
swept under the carpet but getting sexy in this age of
cummupence...
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The WSIS / ITU / UN / IGF solution to change the US Governments
unilateral control over the IANA database is to add more
governments through various suggested formulas to create a
multilateral controlling body. There are two aspects to this that
cause me intense discomfort.
<br>
<br>
1. If the idea of "1 Government = bad" is true, then the idea that
"more Governments = better" flies in the face of logic, and in
fact if 1 = bad then surely more = worse...
<br>
<br>
2. It is true that the US Government originally invested massively
in time and dollars in the development of the Internet - although
not deliberately, but through the military and academic
communities, and therefore is justified to take a patriarchal role
in the management of the Internet's unique identifiers. And
generally the US Government has acted fairly and appropriately,
and is gradually enabling greater autonomy to ICANN, as ICANN
proves itself more capable of assuming greater control.
<br>
<br>
It is hard to find actual and significant examples where the US
Government has not acted in the best interests of the global
internet community, or acted purely from self interest.
<br>
<br>
And it is getting easier to find examples of the US Government
moving towards enabling ICANN greater autonomy. For examples:
<br>
- The change from Contract to Memorandum of Understanding to the
current "affirmation of commitments" as the agreement between the
USG and ICANN
<br>
- The latest IANA contract negotiations went through two stages of
public consultation, and the final contract with ICANN for the
IANA function was much modified to take account of the input from
the global Internet community - particularly in terms of
recognising sovereign rights of nation states.
<br>
<br>
And actually multistakeholder control is what we all eventually
seek - the Internet is much too important to be another plaything
/ political football of governments - so it behoves us to ensure
that multistakeholderism, with business, government, civil society
and the technical and academic communities jointly and equally
participating is the appropriate future of "ruling the root".
<br>
<br>
Cheers
<br>
<br>
Keith
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>