[governance] On CS I'net Gov. Caucus Response

[Ronald Koven]

To: "Milton Mueller", INTERNET:mueller at syr.edu

Date: Mon, Aug 15, 2005 12:48:08 AM

RE: Re: [governance] On CS I'net Gov. Caucus Response

Dear Milton Mueller --

I wholly agree with you that I'm being inconsistent on a theoretical level.
I thought I had conceded as much in my comments. But I was suggesting a
pragmatic approach to try to avert increasing the authority over Internet
by governments with very bad free speech/free press records.

I don't doubt for a minute that the USG would interfere if/when it thought
its interests were at stake. I simply argued that that doesn't seem to have
happened, at least not significantly, to date and that the USG has an
interest in not appearing to interfere.

I do understand that the GAC was introduced into the ICANN system for the
purpose of creating moral pressure by governments, thus granting them
strong influence. As I understand it, the requirement that ICANN make
formal justification of any decisions to ignore GAC recommendations is an
obvious attempt to make it very hard in practice for ICANN to go against
governmental wishes. But that does not strike me as a reason to give
governments still more power over I'net by "internationalizing" it under
the UN.

I'm not at all naive about what the USG is capable of. On the whole,
however, when it comes to press freedom internationally, the USG has tended
to be on the right side for a number of reasons, ranging from the noble to
the opportunistic. The USG denounced governments like the Soviet Union for
its bad press freedom record because that was a very convenient stick to
use, but the USG ignored the equally bad record of Saudi Arabia because it
was inconvenient to beat up on "our SOB." Press freedom groups took the
help that was available fromm the USG and went out on their own when the
USG wouldn't help.

We have found in practice that we can lobby the USG into taking better
positions than its initial reflexes would lead it to do. At first, the US
Delegation to WSIS had a list of priorities that included cybersecurity but
didn't even mention freedom of expression and press freedom. The World
Press Freedom Committee made a big behind-scenes fuss over that, and the US
position shifted as a result. Shaming China or Russia or (I'm sorry to say)
France into doing the right thing is a far iffier proposition.

My argument comes down to leaving well enough alone -- not in saying that
this is the best of all possible worlds. I just think that attempts to
achieve such a perfect world will wind up, in practice, in creating a worse
one. Bad tactics are not going to make good strategy.

Best regards, Rony Koven


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance