This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.

[I-coordination] A different model

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Dec 11 01:29:57 CET 2013


Jorge,

On 11/12/2013 08:00, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> 1) The US does have a privileged position with ICANN. This is the result
>> of history. The US invented the Internet and has driven much of its
>> development. The US has not really done very much to influence ICANN's
>> work, when it could have done more.
>>
> 
> If you do some research about the history of the Internet you will find out
> that this is certainly not 100% true, so being point #1 does not give too
> much credit to the rest.

It's true that the US only *mostly* invented the Internet, since a few
foreigners were involved too, such as Louis Pouzin, but that doesn't affect
the truth of the last sentence. I've always regretted that ICANN was
founded in US jurisdiction (rather than CH which was my preferred option
at the time, or NL which others proposed). But all the same, USG influence
has been more threatened that real.

> Internet Governance does not stand for "governing" the Internet, and this
> is one of the interpretations that generates all sorts of conflicts,
> particularly when the term gets translated to other languages such as
> Spanish.

Indeed, it was a stupid choice of word from Day One.

> While not universally accepted, and still under discussion how to interpret
> it, out of WSIS 2005 there was some agreement on a "working" definition
> that says:

Does anyone have a shred of respect for anything that came out of WSIS?

> "Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the
> private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared
> principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that
> shape the evolution and use of the Internet."

Try this and see if it makes sense:

"Atmosphere governance is the development and application by Governments, the
private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared
principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that
shape the evolution and use of the atmosphere."

As George pointed out, there is a great gulf between administration of
the technical side of the Internet and regulation of the social and economic
impact of the Internet. Mixing these two up under the G-word has led to
enormous confusion of thought, not least right here on this list.

The best thing the IGF (and the Brazil meeting) could do is ban the
G word and separate the two discussions.

    Brian



More information about the I-coordination mailing list