[governance] NTIA announcement on JPA

[William Drake]

Hi Ian,

Sure, but means what, just secede?  Have John Perry Barlow write another
declaration of independence?  The last one worked out so well....

Given the politics and legalities, what's a plausible scenario?

Best

Bill


On 4/3/08 8:47 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> My assumption is that if ICANN wants to be an international body, it has to
> make itself one. Not rely on USG to do it, who have no such interest.
> 
> 
> 
> Ian Peter
> Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
> PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
> www.internetmark2.org
> www.nethistory.info
>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>> Sent: 03 April 2008 17:02
>> To: Mueller, Milton; Governance
>> Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
>> 
>> Hi Milton,
>> 
>> Agree with most of your post, but one comment.
>> 
>> On 4/3/08 5:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> The answer should be obvious: NTIA is not looking for information about
>> what
>>> needs to be done, but seeking confirmation of its prior tendency to do
>>> nothing. Government agencies, in the absence of strong leadership from
>> their
>>> political superiors, are lazy and prone to inertia. NTIA is not going to
>> take
>>> any initiatives on its own and clearly the lame-duck Bush Presidency has
>> no
>>> vision or plan in this area. The US is reasonably comfortable with the
>> status
>>> quo and won't move until someone makes them very uncomfortable.
>> 
>> Saying the problem is laziness is equivalent to the standard practice of
>> attributing failed international negotiations to a lack of "political
>> will."
>> There are of course structural forces at work that constrain the space for
>> movement.  The US has a strong society and an institutionally weak state
>> (save in the military sphere).  NTIA's Office of International Affairs is
>> just nine mostly mid-level people (all of them women, coincidentally), 3
>> of
>> whom have any involvement in ICANN matters.  They work for a Commerce Sec.
>> and administration committed to the Alfred E. Neuman school of economic
>> policymaking, and are down the street from a multiplicity of massive
>> companies, industry associations and government agencies, plus think tanks
>> and CSOs, all of whom oppose sharing sovereignty.  You know all this, so
>> why
>> dump on "lazy bureaucrats"?  You can't really believe that if NTIA
>> staffers
>> just pulled up their socks and sat up straighter they could tell all the
>> assembled forces for the status quo, sorry, suck it up, ICANN goes free
>> into
>> the wild because we think it's a good idea that might make IGP and some
>> non-voters in distant lands happy?
>> 
>>> community and even ICANN itself is clearly unhappy with its role, and
>> anyone
>>> with half a brain knows that it is not a austainable position in the
>> long
>>> term.
>> 
>> In the long run we're all dead, so that's not much comfort.  Prior to
>> that,
>> I've got fifty bucks that says the next administration won't change
>> anything, at least not in its first term.  Who'd want to throw read meat
>> to
>> right wing blogosphere etc before the 2012 election?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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



____________________________________________________________
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