[governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE)

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<CACAaNxgXcy2--ajMRdhL8gtmeMrNede6e_dT3Lhs6Css8Q5iJw at mail.gmail.com>, at 
15:41:58 on Tue, 28 May 2013, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> writes
>At what point did the USG involvement in administration of Internet
>resources become illegitimate?  Certainly, one can't argue that in a
>completely US funded network of networks research program that a USG
>role in administration was illegitimate, so it had to be at some point
>in its evolution.  Can you name that point?

I don't like the word "illegitimate" in this context, but the landscape 
has indeed evolved and roles have changed, and so that we don't repeat 
earlier mistakes it's important to have a sense of history.

This was one of the milestones (tender document for InterNIC) which saw 
the Internet tangibly move away from the USG, but as we know it was far 
from being a clean break:

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/stis1992/nsf9224/nsf9224.txt

-- 
Roland Perry

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