[governance] RE: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC

[Milton L Mueller]

I have direct experience in ARIN of individuals affiliated with government _agencies_ making a policy proposal and participating as peers in the process. I have also seen specific agencies of national govts contract with experts to represent their positions in bottom up processes.

Mostly, that's ok with me.

But this is the "disaggregated" model I referred to. There is no system of representation of "government" in ARIN, or RIPE, afaik. I think it is dangerous to speak of "government" as a stakeholder, if by government one means things like "Australia" or "the United States of America" or "China." I would not want to see any RIR's representational or participatory structure modified to incorporate representation of a government qua government - as I said, such a system is fundamentally incompatible with bottom up MSM.

--MM

________________________________
From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 3:37 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
Cc: Andrea Glorioso
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC




On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
I might add one other thing.

When Paul Wilson and other representatives of I* governance organizations happily concede that 'governments are stakeholders too' I believe that what they are doing is proposing a political bargain, not a coherent mode of governance.

or perhaps simply describing reality as they experience it?

As a member of the ARIN AC, you have first hand experience with Government types being active in RIR policy formation.  IS this not a "coherent form' of IG?




In other words, they are trying to reach an accommodation with nation-states that will preserve key elements of the status quo by reassuring state actors that they will not be left out of or excluded from the system. By calling states-as-unitary-actors "stakeholders" who must be specially accommodated through contradictory and dysfunctional arrangements like the GAC, they are literally compromising what we know about how MS governance works in order to buy greater political support for the new institutions from the old institutions.

I agree that "separate and unequal"  a la GAC, is suboptimal

--
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/20131201/3407bc46/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