[governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution

[Lee McKnight]

Hi,

Yes Coleman is just one Senator, but if resolutions like this pop up in
House & Senate it is a result of cooordinated effort (eg, can you spell
V******n to name a usual suspect?

But note that aside from the ritualistic bashing of the UN and
repressive regimes, the operant paragraph only encourages the President
to continue to assert that:

"the United States has no PRESENT INTENTION (emphasis added) of
relinquishing the historic leadership role the Unted States has played
in Internet Governance.'

So, yet again, this is not news, and should not be a surprise - the
poker game has just begun, and no acceptable offers are on the table as
yet from the ROW in the USG's view. But we knew that already, didn't
we?

And re the 'UN running the net' bogeyman, the ITU Sec Gen, head of a UN
agency, foolishly said as much just the other week, so the politicans
now have cover for distorting what WGIG and others have said. 

In sum, no point in CS wading directly into this, focus focus focus on
text CS wants, the games have already begun.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> 10/20/2005 11:45 AM >>>
Hi Robert,

On 10/20/05, Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
> Adam:
>
>
> The sense of the senate resolution is a clear indication of one
thing

It hasn't passed... yet

> - that politicians

one politician at least, who has taken the "Jesse Helms role" in the
Senate as UN basher.

> discussions are taking place on the issue of internet governance.
>
> The fact that the resolution comes from the senate and from a
> conservative should not be lost.  Perhaps due to the administration,
> or press - or both - we likely find ourselves in a situation that
the
> US position is far firmer, and much less flexible than we had at
PC3.

I think we have known this since July, and it is the result of WSIS
media coverage that highlighted ICANN vs. UN.

> In summary:
>
> - lowered expectations :  The EU, Brazil and others - is they are
> smart enough, should have known this was a possibility. As a
> consequence are expectations set so low that any result is a
success?

This (low expectations) is a useful thing IMO.

> - So how does this WG wish to respond. Does it wish to accept the
> reality that the USG position is firmer and accept it, try to
> mediate, or ignore and go on pushing for internalization.

I think we have to accept it, and offer status quo minus.

> Can the forum save things...?

Out of scope for me ;-)

--
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

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