[bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot?

[Norbert Bollow]

Thanks, Bill, for sharing this valuable information! This perspective
certainly helps gain a more well-rounded understanding of what is going
on.

FWIW I agree with the NTIA's assessment that the US “oversight” role of
ICANN is in today's constellation nothing but a political liability for
the US; it is not a source of true power of any kind that would be of
value to the US.

Greetings,
Norbert


William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I think understanding this relies on your view of NTIA intentions.
> > 
> > None of us can know those, but we all guess at them based on all
> > sorts of evidence, theories and assorted perspectives.
> 
> And conversations with the folks involved.
> > 
> > If you tend to think that NTIA wants to hold or even increase its
> > influence, you assume one thing - that this had to be done against
> > their will or advice and that it is a slap in the face to US goals.
> > 
> > If you assume that NTIA really wants to divest control in a sane
> > and safe manner to multistakeholder modeled governance, while
> > seeing the Internet remain open, you assume another.
> > 
> > I assume the latter.
> 
> I don't think it's just an assumption.  But there are of course
> internal debates and countervailing pressures, so this has to be done
> very carefully and in a somewhat evolutionary manner, recognizing the
> substantial domestic political constraints.  It's not like the
> administration could be relishing the prospect of a campaign on Fox
> News etc. with the Tea Party screaming "Obama hands over the
> Internet", much less all the real power centers that will be nervous
> about a headlong dive into the unknown.  So there's a lot that would
> have to be done to keep this on course, and alas NTIA staff cannot
> even legally respond to their email at the moment, much less engage
> in global discussion.
> > 
> > The NTIA is not the NSA, like most governments, outside of
> > dictatorships, there is no agreement in the goals of the various
> > departments.  NSA's goals are not NTIA's goals.
> 
> Fair to say, and worth remembering when making sweeping statements
> about this or any other government (see Wolfgang's recent note on
> endemic intra-ministerial fragmentation).
> > 
> > I tend to believe in NTIA's commitment and support for the wider
> > multi stakeholder model of Internet governance.   So yeah, them
> > being somehow "in the mix" seems about right to me.
> > 
> > In other words, and to join in the prevailing marriage metaphor, I
> > think the US and ICANN have an open marriage.
> 
> And one side seems increasingly inclined to understand the TOR a bit
> flexibly.
> > 
> > And speaking of metaphors, and of shooting people in the foot, I
> > think we should encourage the new directions and their initiators
> > especially when they are multi stakeholder in intent, taking into
> > account that they are new directions and still largely
> > aspirational.  I think this is the case for  Civil Society both
> > inside of Brazil and inside of ICANN, as well as the fragments of
> > International Civil Society that gather in BestBits.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 14 Oct 2013, at 01:37, William Drake wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi 
> >> 
> >> On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:17 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé
> >> <joao.caribe at me.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> I really can't understand how NTIA could be behind Fadi's meeting
> >>> in Brasilia.
> >> 
> >> Not behind, but in the mix.  
> >> 
> >> Bill
> > 
>