[governance] IANA transition - BR Gov comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal

Barry Shein bzs at world.std.com
Tue Jun 9 17:46:28 EDT 2015


On June 9, 2015 at 11:39 froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) wrote: [responding to Parminder]
 > Here we just disagree. I see the task as monsterously hard, the work of 
 > a decade or more.

I certainly agree with this.

 > In my view, a bespoke international structure is actually much harder -- 
 > it would need to be invented almost from scratch.  And it is bound to be 
 > flawed; national rules are the result of at least decades if not more of 
 > trial and error.

Also agree.

There isn't even any broad definition on basic terms such as
"multistakeholder" in any functional sense much beyond picking the
word apart.

I think Bertrand is on the right track with at least trying to
enumerate the possible structures and working from there.

Too much of this discussion seems to want to jump right into the
end-game as if there were only a few details remaining to be agreed.

Yet, as you point out, others are proposing internationalized
structures which don't even exist currently.

Besides accountability I'd like to see some sort of model of the unit
of enfranchisability as a definitional goal.

The United Nations' founding isn't hard to understand in this regard,
as one example. It's right in its name. The unit of enfranchisability
was and is the nation-state. And then they have procedures to
enfranchise or disenfranchise members.

It would be nice to see something analogous for this proposed
structure without the use of the term "stakeholder" because as far as
I can tell every individual on the planet, or at least every internet
user, is a proper stakeholder. I will assume that's what the term
means without further clarification. And any organized subsets
thereof. That doesn't clarify it much.

Perhaps we should start at the end and choose a name? It might be a
useful thought exercise.

It won't be "ICANN" because that's just a reference to "names and
numbers" which is a tiny part of what's at issue.

"Internet Governance" + noun (Organization, etc) is too verbal, that's
what the proposed organization would do in some broad sense.

United Multistakeholders?

Internet Multistakeholders?

Drop the "multi" in each case?

So slippery.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*

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


More information about the Governance mailing list