[governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management

[Daniel Kalchev]

On 01.11.14 03:31, David Conrad wrote:
>> I was today at a meeting with our government, and they insisted
>> that "multistakeholderism", "as they were told by ICANN" means,
>> that governments should have more role in managing the Internet.
> 
> I suspect (but am just guessing) that the intended message was that
> it would be useful if governments got more involved as a peer with
> other stakeholders in efforts related to Internet governance, i.e.,
> governments are part of the multi-stakeholder model. However as you
> note, people will hear what they want to hear.

We all want governments involved. If for no other reason, than them
wearing too much oppressive power in the society and without knowledge
of the real issues and processes, could do much harm, when basing
their decisions on what someone's grandmother heard on the queue at
the supermarket.

>> They also commented that Bulgaria is the only country in Europe
>> with a liberal regime where the government does not control the
>> Internet (their wording), and this should be fixed.
> 
> It might be interesting to understand what they believe 'control
> the Internet' means.

This is indeed an interesting situation. My theory is this: We have
been in "transition" for some 25 years now and all this time, our
government people were concerned how much more they could steal (or
help their friends/masters steal). This has not left them much time to
really concentrate on the Internet. They did listen to their telecom
friends (in old times, the telecom was a good source of unaccounted
money for the government) --- and this eventually led to some absurd
situations/regulations, very related to Internet development, but
indirectly. They also listen to their secret services/mafia friends,
in attempts to pass some ridiculous "they have such in other
countries, we must be able to do it too" type laws on surveillance. It
is just amazing how our society has managed to resist that part.

They eventually looked into this "internet governance" stuff,
including running/managing the various registries, but ultimately came
to the idea "there is not enough money in this to bother". But, as
they hear "internet governance" talks all around them, at all possible
forums, they probably think this is something very important to be
involved in. But, as everyone tells them their role is to participate,
not rule... they get very confused.

In this regard, I am curious whose agenda is it to involve governments
in this process -- you can't force processes on parties that are not
ready and this is exactly what happens.

Daniel

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