"denationalization" Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead

[Norbert Bollow]

Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> > Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is
> > feasible?
>  
> Yes, certainly there are. The whole idea of MuSH involves elevating
> non-state actors to the same or comparable status of state actors in
> the formulation of policy. The standardization processes of your
> vaunted IETF used to be performed by states, but in IETF was not. One
> simple example. ICANN was _supposed_ to be denationalized, but the US
> couldn't bring itself to let go. But nothing about the original plan
> was "not feasible" - it was a choice. Governance of Internet routing
> is largely denationalized now. 

Please let's not forget that the question was raised in the context of
the issue of transborder privacy violations by state actors.

Greetings,
Norbert

-- 
Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:
1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept

-------------- 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