[governance] IGF workshops

[Karl Auerbach]

Parminder wrote:

>> But I am surprised you don't mention critical Internet resources.

> Just a little hesitation before one touches the forbidden subject :)

> ... I know there has been some history on public interest tlds,

TLDs?  I have a hard time thinking of top level domains as an "internet
resource" much less a critical one.

Indeed, one of the problems I see here in these discussions are too many
people want to make internet governance into something larger than it
ought to be.  And by so doing we increase the chance of stepping on the
toes of interests in other areas and thus increase our chance of failing.

Take for example top level domains.  There is no reason why there needs
to be any body of internet governance at all over the domain name
system.  ICANN, for example, is a governance body that exists because
some lawyers in Washington DC did not understand what the domain name
system is or how it works and made some very wrong assumptions.  It was
somebody's idea of a solution to a problem that did not, and still does
not, really exist.  And I don't think anyone, apart from trademark
lawyers, can really consider that a successful effort.

Yes, each distinct DNS root zone needs to have its own bit of
centralized administration.  But there need not be a global body of
governance that displaces the role of innovators and a competition in
the marketplaces of ideas and money.

Rather than talking about a .publicdomain TLD, why not talk about
breaking the mental strictures that limit the internet to one catholic
(lower case 'c') domain space with an overlord of names at the top? 
That way you could try out .publicdomain without first having to beg for 
permission.  And we ought not to forget that the special thing about the 
internet, and a thing we are rapidly losing, is the idea that innovation 
(even in DNS) can occur at the edges - we ought never to lose sight of 
the End-to-End principle or the derivative that I call "The First Law of 
the Internet".

Much of what I have seen under the umbrella of "critical internet 
resources" are not resources critical to the internet.  Rather they are 
resources that use the internet to accomplish some desired human value. 
  Personally it seems to me that such human values ought to be 
considered in their broader contexts and not limited to the internet.

For example: "free speech on the internet".  Is that an internet issue
or an issue with a more broad context?  Once we admit that it is an
internet issue then we have to recognize that one could then say that
"free speech on telephones" is a separate issue.  And that "free speech
on university campuses" is another.

To my mind there are really very few resources on the internet that are
critical and require governance.  And of those, most of those have to do
with IP addresses and the routing of packets, issues that are very, very
boring to most people.

Much of the rest are projections of worthy goals and values onto the
internet.  I tool support and would like to see many of these goals and
values come to pass.  But I don't consider them to be "internet" issues.

I would seriously suggest that there be a workshop on the question of 
"What are the things in the internet that need governance at all?"

That way we might understand when a call for governance is really an 
expression of social goal that extends beyond the internet or when a 
call for governance is really an attempt by an industrial group (such as 
the trademark lobby) to create a weak governance body that can be 
captured and manipulated.

		--karl--

____________________________________________________________
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