[governance] [bestbits] UN Working Group considering mechanisms for global governance of Internet fails

Mueller, Milton L milton at gatech.edu
Fri Feb 9 11:16:44 EST 2018


Dave:
If you think Parminder fears government involvement you are deeply confused and deeply out of touch with the real politics of Internet governance.

From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Dave Burstein
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 6:51 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
Cc: parminder <parminder.js at gmail.com>; governance at lists.riseup.net; BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] UN Working Group considering mechanisms for global governance of Internet fails

Quickly

I didn't mean "a Marc Anthony’s funeral oration vibe" when I said I believe Parminder, Vint Cerf, and similar are taking their positions "honorably" because they fear any government involvement. No satire or implications.

I do know the U.S. government position is a cold war revival. Larry Strickling, a lead of the U.S. government at WCIT explained their position by asking me, "Dave, do you want Russia and China running the Internet." I do, actually, alongside other nations. China is now 1/3rd of the Internet. A system that excludes them is unstable.  (See the board of ICANN or ISOC.)

As I predicted, what's happening is the excluded are building their alternate institutions: BRICs agreements, World Internet Conference, Belt & Road extending to Europe and Africa, Russia's alternate root. http://netpolicynews.com/index.php/component/content/article/89-r/941-russia-orders-alternate-internet-system






On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net<mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
I’m getting a strong Marc Anthony’s funeral oration vibe here when I read your email :)

But how would moving all this mess to the UN make it multistakeholder?  You’d just see a more government centric model, with most stakeholders kept away from policy making.

Maybe some favoured civil society would get in based on how close they are to their individual governments but that’s about it.

And as for industry the traditional telecom players would have a disproportionate presence compared to most anyone else.

There is a lot to carp and criticise over the existing model, but exchanging it for the UN would be that old Aesop fable of the fish getting king stork instead of king log.

_____________________________
From: Dave Burstein <daveb at dslprime.com<mailto:daveb at dslprime.com>>
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 2:46 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] UN Working Group considering mechanisms for global governance of Internet fails
To: parminder <parminder.js at gmail.com<mailto:parminder.js at gmail.com>>
Cc: <governance at lists.riseup.net<mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org<mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>>
(The euphemism is "only high order principles.) I'm sure folks like Vint Cerf support "multistakeholder" and "consensus" for honorable fear of governments. Knowing Parminder's work, I expect he's in that camp, also for honorable reasons.





--
Editor, Fast Net News, Wireless One.news, Net Policy News and DSL Prime
Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great, Getting It Noticed (Peachpit)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180209/8d968f05/attachment.htm>


More information about the Governance mailing list