[governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not?

[William Drake]

Hi Milton,

On Sep 30, 2009, at 11:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>> You betcha.  A couple slices at least. Review panels doth not
>> a clean break make.
>
> Having read the AoC agreement now, and the original bet, I disagree.
> I think I win. Clean break. Ding dong, the JPA is dead, and  
> certainly "changed".
> Thanks to Adam for digging up the original bet.

I thought it was a debate/bet on decoupling from US control, but guess  
you ultimately turned it into "change something related to the JPA."   
Thus stated I obviously have to concede on your point, but it is less  
obvious that I have to concede on mine given the remaining contracts,  
larger political environment, "long-standing agreement" with the USG,  
et al.   Will be interesting to see the reactions within ITU and other  
places non-OECD governments roam. Either way, I suggest again that we  
split the bill (and change the subject line, getting tired).


On Sep 30, 2009, at 11:56 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>> rules could be tough on they key issues.  Someone care to spell out
>> the argument for how this constitutes a real break in the governance
>> of names and numbers, rather than a limited, incremental
>> step? Some years ago the US and EU came up with the face-saving
>> safe harbor agreement on privacy protection, and US business pretty
>> much continued on its merry way.  How different will this be,
>> in terms of outcomes?
>
> Bill, you are saying that this is not a very good accountability  
> mechanism. Ding! On target.

  While I agree on the need for procedural rules and external  
accountability etc, I think I'm saying more than that.

> But, as far as the JPA termination goes, the basic issue is that  
> (other than IANA contract) Commerce Dept oversight is finished,  
> over, it's now just one of several GAC members in the basic  
> supervision.

Never heard the phrase, first among equals?

> Also the Affirmation itself seems to have no legal authority or  
> binding power. And, the NTIA-ers got all the folks who might scream  
> about "giving the internet away to furriners" (VeriSign, CSIS,  
> Google) to agree to it in advance and put up favorable public  
> comments on their web site. Altogether, an impressive fig leaf to  
> cover the end of the JPA. Well done, tactically.

Ergo the safe harbor comparison.

> But no, let's not be fooled about this solving the accountability  
> problem. And let's pay careful attention to the enhanced role of GAC  
> and the possible abuse of its selection powers.

And start saving info for NCUC's first submission to the review  
panels :-)

Bill




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20091001/901a872f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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