Karl Auerbach karl at cavebear.com
Mon Jul 30 19:47:49 EDT 2007

Dan Krimm wrote:
> What this says to me is that "Internet Governance" is insufficient to
> address the Public Governance issues surrounding the Internet.
> Maybe it's time to start defining terms in detail.  You guys have defined
> IG in narrow technical terms, which is fair enough.  But then, PGoI is
> something that needs to be addressed separately starting yesterday, because
> that is where issues like the Digital Divide and Net Neutrality make a
> difference to public citizens across the globe.

At which point this effort comes under what in the US is a very negative 
political banner, "world governance".

There are many problems in the world, a goodly number of which touch the 

But they also touch telephones and electricity and medicines and patent 
law and clean water and ... And for the same reasons that drive you to 
feel that these problems should be solved under the "Public Governance 
issues surrounding the Internet" banner, it could be argued with equal 
force that they fall under those other banners as well.

The best way to make no progress on any front is to try to make progress 
on too many fronts.

> How do we "satisfice" in getting the best we can, now?  I would suggest
> that by narrowing our focus to only technical IG, we lose sight of the
> broader issues that still *must* and *will* be addressed, even in the
> default.

I doubt we will ever loose sight of the needs of people, we tend to 
become noisy.

But if we do not do a decent job with the little stuff - things that 
have a clear tie to technical needs - then we will not obtain the 
credibility to attempt the greater issues, much less to succeed at them.


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:

More information about the Governance mailing list