[governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> while countries actions might be shaped by them, they are not governed
> by them. There are governed by realpolitik, which has to incorporate the

[Milton L Mueller] yes, good distinction. 

> A question: if WSIS lacked 'the capability' to 'take over' ICANN, what
> has since changed that the CIRP could do so?  As you've said in your
> blog post on the CIRP, "CIRP looks more like a government-centered IGF -
> one that is empowered to make recommendations - than a global Internet
> Czar."

[Milton L Mueller] Nothing much has changed. USG would not hand over the IANA contract, vast majority of Internet technical community and all of ODII still opposed to a takeover, ICANN is much stronger and more entrenched, in fact. EC still straddles the fence, pushing for more governmental control, but via GAC and not the UN. USG seems to view a stronger GAC as a way of pre-empting CIRP-like proposals, but obviously that hasn't worked ;-) 

What confuses me is why the CIRP is talking about using domain name and address registration fees to fund its activities. Do you have any idea?  I honestly don't. Are they still looking for an ICANN takeover?

[a lot of good stuff cut]

> We both agree that governments tend to wish for greater control, and
> this must be resisted (in favour of open, functional, multi-
> stakeholderism).  Ours is a disagreement on the how.  I believe that
> governments must get involved and lead this change because none of the
> other stakeholders are capable, even if willing, of doing so, and you
> believe that will be positively harmful as governments will not
> willingly lead a change towards less governmental control and the shift
> to the UN from US-centrism as being a case of two wrongs not making a
> right.

[Milton L Mueller] Yes, you characterize the difference accurately but you may not have noticed how the IGP group began almost precisely in the way you suggest, calling upon states to negotiate a framework convention as part of a MS process that would establish the foundations for a global regime that would preserve the openness and liberalism of the Internet. However, it became progressively clearer to me that states were motivated by the realpolitik dynamic you described above, and also by much narrower and more immediate lobbying from special interests, and thus simply could not be trusted to take that path. I believe that the best path now is to continue to hold off demands for coordinated state intervention as long as possible so as to allow decentralized, networked governance forms to become more rooted, especially in the developing world, and for a global polity to form around the internet. Stave off formalized efforts of established institutions as long as possible so that the practical absence of control via traditional means allows the other means to be explored. A key danger of this approach is the "unholy alliance" between the new, private-sector private governance forms and states, allowing a "worst of both worlds" situation. But I would rather deal with that problem than with a full-on reassertion of traditional state authority. 

 
> Lastly, I believe you ["fair assessment"][1] is a much clearer
> exposition of the problems with the CIRP proposal than this e-mail.

[Milton L Mueller] of course! On an email list I am much less careful...in case you hadn't noticed!
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t