[governance] september song... :)

[Carlos Afonso]

Well, aside from the fact that MM's methodological separation is just
academic (as there are no signs Bushland will relinquish its role on
ICANN), *if* ICANN, as it is now, goes to a situation of no governmental 
control whatsoever on its core operations, *then* we will still have 
another serious problem -- the objective fact that a private non-profit 
sustained by a quasi-monopoly of the global domain name business could 
hardly become truly independent.

--c.a.

Milton Mueller wrote:
>>>> apeake at gmail.com 7/20/2006 10:12 AM >>>
>> Thanks to Brenden Kuerbis and IGP for pointing to an interesting 
>> proposal from Becky Burr and Marilyn Cade on oversight of the root
> 
> A bit behind the traffic here, but please note that the proposal is
> Burr's. Marilyn Cade has simply endorsed it.
> 
> Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion
> between two distinct things:
> 
> 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the
> inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies
> are rules are made.
> 
> 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF).
> 
> Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. Governments can
> have 1 without 2. Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to
> be accountable, governments can and should establish global rules
> that help to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its
> successor abuses its authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, steals,
> etc. it needs to be accountable. Governments need to work out how to
> apply competition policy and law, and trade rules to ICANN. That's
> all legitimate government business.
> 
> But that does not mean that governments need to have or should have
> some kind of veto power over modifications of the root zone file. It
> seems to me that giving governments*any one or any collection of
> them*some kind of final veto power over the RZF is just asking for
> trouble. The Burr proposal tries to deal with this by saying that
> governments can intervene only to protect technical stability and
> security. But this is like telling a fox he can only eat one of the
> chickens he is guarding when the stability and security of the farm
> is threatened. The fox will always want to eat the chickens, and will
> use any excuse he can to define something as a threat to the farm's
> stability and security.
> 
> Governments and their representatives are not likely to have any clue
> as to what RZF changes affect the technical security and stability of
> the Internet. But they will know how their political interests are
> affected. They will want to control or affect the RZF for political
> reasons, not technical ones.
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any
> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see: 
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br
***************************************************************

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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance