[governance] Statement made in Plenary

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

Dear list,
 
I think what we are searching for is a "dual system" with a "governmental cloud" over the "private day-to-day-operations". Insofar has the EU proposal as an argument on its side, by saying they want to have governmental involvment "on the level of principle". 
 
So what we have to discuss is more the specifics, that is the border line between the "day-to-day oprations" and the "level of principle", that is the design and the dimension of the "governmental cloud". The risk is that it can become easily a "dark could full of rain" which will set a lot of Internet territory under water. 
 
The challenge is about the balance, something like a "dormant authority" for governments which is wakened up only in cases where for obvious reasons public policy is at stake. And for the rest (98 per cent) it should be full privatization. An "either or" will not work.  
 
In my paper I have proposed "full privatization" (that is no government) for the root issue on the basis of four "if´s". One of the if´s is a new relationship between a reformed GAC and ICANN Board (which was opposed by Milton). The limits with the GAC are besides a lot of other things (legitamicy, legal foundation, procedures, membership etc.) the role of Taiwan as a full member which makes it impossible for China to recognize the GAC as a real option for a governmental channel.
 
The other problem is that David Gross said in his statement in Geneva, that for the US government the authorization function for the publication of zone files in the root, excuted by the NTIA, is part of the "day to day operaitons". With other words, it would not be the subject of the proposed regulation by the EU "on the level of principle", which is unacceptable for the ERU and others.  
 
So lets move forward by looking more into the details, where governmental involvement is unavoidable, needed and useful and where it should be blocked and watered down to zero.

Best regards
 
wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Vittorio Bertola
Gesendet: Mo 03.10.2005 16:38
An: jam at jacquelinemorris.com
Cc: Governance; Veni Markovski
Betreff: Re: [governance] Statement made in Plenary



Jacqueline Morris wrote:
> I agree.
> Once things start to get politicised, there lies the problem. I don't
> think it's necessarily ICANN, or the US, but all Governments can  (and
> sometimes do) apply local law to companies to further their political
> agendas.

I still have a problem with using private law to regulate an
"international global facility", as long as these private law
arrangements entrust individual companies with the factual power to deny
the service - or make it very hard to obtain - to entire countries or
categories of people (language communities might be another example).

I don't think that hard global public regulation, i.e. treaties, is the
best way to solve the problem either, but I also don't think that
business decisions deriving from the interest of one party only should
be the one and only driver of the evolution of the Internet.
--
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
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