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

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

There has always – and not just today – been a wide variety of local and regional agreements for specific governance issues, IP address numbering and such.

 

The belt and road is a much larger strategic initiative that should deeply worry every other Asian country other than the ones coopted into it, but it’d be interesting if the Chinese have fit internet governance issues into that effort instead of a string of roads, ports etc built using Chinese funding and enabling them to achieve geopolitical dominance in the region.

 

 

From: <governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Dave Burstein <daveb at dslprime.com>
Reply-To: Dave Burstein <daveb at dslprime.com>
Date: Friday, 2 February 2018 at 5:22 AM
To: "suresh at hserus.net" <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> 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>
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>
Cc: <governance at lists.riseup.net>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <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)

--- To unsubscribe: List help: 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180202/ab836ce2/attachment.htm>