[governance] it ain't broke

[veni markovski]

At 18:23 23-09-2005 +1000, Danny Butt wrote:

>But that doesn't mean that any governance structure shouldn't be
>improved when it is the underpinning for who controls who gets to use
>resources and how.

Actually the European way is to control less and less, and only 
what's limited or dangerous for the health. I don't believe the 
domains, the IP addresses or the root servers are any of those. And 
for the sake of argument, electricity is not the same in every 
country, for every user.  And if you plug in you 110 V adapter into 
the European grid, you know what will happen.

>responsive to all stakeholders. You don't say well, the average
>electricity user doesn't care about who provides their power, so we
>shouldn't be talking about governments being involved in it. To

Actually the electricity *is* dangerous for the health, but that's 
comparing apples to oranges. Internet is not electriciy. You could 
compare, if necessary, to telecommunications.

>it's a totally different animal, and that attitude is the reason why
>ICANN has not reformed itself into the responsive organisation many
>of its initial supporters in the AP region had initially hoped, and
>why there is so little faith in it.

Faith? I hope we don't relay on faith to make an organization 
working. I want to see all stakeholders included in the work of ICANN 
- after all the easiest is to say, "I don't like how it's working", 
and not do anything to change it.
Also, do you believe that your vision about the way Internet is 
governed is similar to the vision of all the others, who are involved 
in the Internet? Because if it isn't, you will either not find a 
solution of the issue, or will have people lose their faith in your 
solution....

>Is it just me, or are the disagreements on the list, alongside the
>sombre mood of the (excellent, thanks!) reports from prepcom,
>suggestive that the WGIG report hasn't made as much of an impact in
>aligning people's concepts of IG as we might have hoped?

The WGIG report can give some guidelines; it can't offer an ultimate 
solution. There's no ultimate solution. Some people (countries) are 
not happy with ICANN being in the US, some are happy. Some people 
want change, some - don't. To have 100 % agreement, brings us back to 
those times, where I used to live until 1989 in East Europe. But, 
seeing how things are changing in the last 15 years, may be the West 
today is what the East was yesterday. Ironic.

veni 

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