AW: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root

Mawaki Chango ki_chango at
Fri Jul 21 13:01:47 EDT 2006

--- Avri Doria <avri at> wrote:

> <personal opinion>
> On 21 jul 2006, at 11.03, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> > I perfectly recall who initially brought up that idea during the
> > retreat discussions, but I won't say it - not that much because
> > of the Chattam House rule, but mostly because some are inclined
> > to value or disqualify ideas based on who proposed them - e.g.,
> > because the proponent would be, allegedly, from a non-democratic
> > country, or just from a part of the world they don't like. I
> > prefer to discuss the ideas...
> and there were also some of us who brought up the idea that no  
> government oversight was required.

Yes indeed, and I am in support of that idea... as an idea ;) Let's
not forget that, beyond the power politics, what is at stake is the
unity of the global internet. Not all societies are on the same page,
or at the same level with some issues. Furthermore, there are still a
lot countries where the infastructures heavily depend on govt
decisions: whether to build, who will build, and who will operate or
even have access - and this is not all market/capital (and sometimes
not even people or democratic client) driven process. If the
government of China can decide to set up alternative root servers,
virtually taking away its huge population from this global internet,
because the govt feel they don't have significant participation in
the related decision making processes, then what do you do (still
about keeping the value of the global internet)? You keep things
tight and see them walk away (followed by other "dissident"
candidates of the current order, or of the "zero government" option)?
Or do you open up for govts while keeping a tight watchdog function,
etc. which will lead both (or the three, if you will) parties to
evolve toward some new (self-activating) institutional practices that
will make things smother to all?

> and while i can see valid arguments for governments to participate
> as  
> stakeholders on a par with other stakeholders, i still do not  
> understand any reason for them to have primacy.

Then as someone pointed out, govts may as well say there's no point
that non-profit, non-govt have primacy in some fora such as IETF,
etc. If there are issue areas where non-profit, non-govt are best at,
there might be some others where govts are not that bad.


> a.

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at

For all list information and functions, see:

More information about the Governance mailing list