[governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...)

[William Drake]

Hi Tom

On Aug 10, 2012, at 12:10 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:

> It is my belief that the IGC should, minimally, put forth at the coming ITU talks that we should seek ways to incorporate the desires, needs, dreams, and otherwise of those not currently a central part of the Net's CIR into a broadened circle of oversight. And that such a broadening serves the goal of a stable and developing Internet.  And that an exploration of expansion, transfer, or movement of root resources and their oversight seems a reasonable place to start.
> 
> I do believe most everyone on this list supports a loosening of the U.S. government's control of some of its CIR reigns, albeit without damaging the Net. So a statement to the effect that "IGC sees merit in exploring a more equitable geographic distribution of root resources" should serve IGC and the Net's future. Such a statement seems to fit quite well with our organization's Vision Statement:

While, like many in CS and the TC, I support the concept of decoupling root change authorizations from sole USG responsibility if and when a plausibly reliable alternative can be identified, realistically it has to recognized that this would need to be an evolutionary process that plays out over some years, with dialogue and collective learning rather than posturing and demanding as the lead edge.

It would need to be debated fully within the US domestic political system, where there would be opposition from virtually every salient corner of the polity, especially the omnipotent and all powerful political right, but also civil society.  So a lot of minds to change to convince people the plausible alternative would maintain the same level of security and stability etc. as now, that it would not increase UNGA-style politicization (e.g. Taiwan or Israel disappear on majority vote) or undermine critical infrastructure protection and of course "sovereignty" (just as much a third rail in the US as anywhere else).  Personally, I find it unimaginable that even if Obama squeaks out a victory he'd pick this fight with a Republican Congress, Fox News, and all the rest.  Normalization of relations with Cuba would probably have a better chance.

It would also need to be worked through to consensus with all the governments and players outside the who US who might have similar concerns about a change, irrespective of what they sometimes say for domestic political consumption (a lot more of these than discussion on this list would ever let on—there's pretty active intergovernmental coordination that we don't see).

It would not happen in a flash because of some sort of divided vote UN declaration any more than this works in any other international issue-area.  Expecting a sovereign state to make big changes that bite domestically because some foreign governments say they don't like something just doesn't work so well—from the mundane (Japanese whaling, aka "scientific research", Americans to stop driving hummers, Chinese to stop burning coal, Indonesians to stop burning forests, Russians to lay off Pussy Riot, and on and on) to the big stuff (Iranian nukes, Syria, pick your example).

You'd also have to assemble a strong coalition of demandeurs to even get it on the UN agenda.  While Parminder seems to be convinced that billions across the entire global South are just seething with rage over who signs off on zone changes, I've asked before for some evidence of who exactly we're taking about here without getting replies.  Probably one could compile an initial list of governments at least by looking at larger, upper income countries like the BRICS whose general diplomatic stance is that they deserve seats at all tables commensurate with their ascendent wealth and power, as well as authoritarian regimes in the ME and elsewhere. Whether all their citizens would feel the same way, know knows.  And for a lot of other countries, this is pretty far down their list of priorities relative to other Internet and non-internet issues.  They might be persuaded to sign onto some G77 and China statement through arm twisting and side-payments (football stadiums seem to work well for China) and the usual presumption that group solidarity increases their influence, but the level of actual commitment may vary.  I know I've asked governments before about G77 statements and been told oh that's not really our position but we have to go along with the group (have heard this in Europe too, for that matter).

I've argued before that the only way one could really start the conversation would be to outline said plausible alternative and why its risks/costs are less than the certainties/benefits of the SQ.  I believe Parminder objected along the lines of this is putting the burden on the oppressed etc but don't want to paraphrase incorrectly and get flamed, so he can perhaps reiterate.  But my view's unchanged, you can't start the conversation without something sensible and concrete written down for people to focus on.  Starting with "we're pissed but it's not up to us to give the alternative" just won't move anything.

In any event, the one thing we ought to be able to agree on is that this has absolutely no place in the ITRs.  The ITRs are not a framework agreement on IG, they're a high-level treaty of rather questionable utility that pertains to how traditional telecom services offered to the general public should be organized at the political level.  DNS matters absolutely do not fit in here even if the Russians and some Arab countries would like to stir it into the pot, and its inclusion would be a regressive step that would correctly engender such extensive Reservations as to make it meaningless.

And in the meanwhile, while we concentrate on this, the rest of global civil society will go on debating other global IG issues that actually bite much more hard on citizens around the world, e.g.rampant surveillance, censorship, securitization, propertyization, access costs and availability, opening up supposedly democratic intergovernmental processes, etc.  So the distance between the IGC and other progressive networks could just fester and grow at a moment when others are trying to come together a bit.

Otherwise, I'm optimistic about making this the caucus' cause célèbre. 

Cheers,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120810/db10b816/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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