[governance] WCIT melt down

[McTim]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
>
> ****
>
> What exactly was the objectionable provision/language?****
>
> "These Regulations recognize the right of access of Member States to
> international telecommunication services."  ****
>
> caused the vote****
>
> ** **
>
> *[Milton L Mueller] That’s what I was afraid of. *
>
> * *
>
> *So this is a more troublesome and complex issue than it might appear. In
> essence, countries such as Sudan have been complaining about the ability of
> the US govt to impose sanctions on them for human rights violations. These
> sanctions mean that people in those countries – not just the government,
> mind you, but everyone, innocent and guilty alike – are denied access to
> Internet services such as Google, Sourceforge, domain name registrars such
> as GoDaddy, Oracle, Windows Live Messenger, etc.*
>

ACK.  Not good for the Internet economy there.


> * *
>
> * *
>
> *I can understand why there would be adamant opposition to a claim to a
> right to access Internet services, because it would mean that the ITRs
> could be used to compel Internet service providers to serve particular
> states, when they might choose (privately) not to. However, as a form of
> imposed state-state action, I am not so sanguine about protecting the
> ability of some governments to gang up on others using the IG regime.  *
>
> * *
>
> *Suppose that the US decided to deny access to the domain name root zone
> resolution to, say Iran (.ir), because of its bad HR record. *
>

How exactly would they do that?



> * And make no mistake about it, the Iranian government is about as bad as
> it gets with respect to human rights. But would we want ICANN/the Internet
> governance regime to be used as a political/strategic tool in this fashion?
> *
>
> * *
>
> *Or suppose that ICANN decided to exclude Syria from the GAC.*
>
* Certainly Syria is a criminal regime. But do we want ICANN to be a
> neutral meeting ground for all parties or not?*
>

yes.  Who decides who gets in the GAC?



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121213/1c77b4f7/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