This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to email@example.com. 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
jmamodio at gmail.com
Wed Dec 11 06:36:54 CET 2013
> >> 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
> > 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.
"Mostly" true on the invention part, on the development side as I remember
international participation took off very quickly, particularly in
countries that were already moving away from the technology and economics
dominated by the old CCITT and government controlled PTTs.
> > 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
> > 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?
Hard to say, but it seems that it became a very lucrative career now full of
experts. We even have schools that teach on the subject.
It reminds me about the abundance on the early days of the Internet
of plenty of projects on paper (thick piles of yada yada) just looking to
milk the funds out of several international organizations, particularly from
the old continent.
> > "Internet governance is the development and application by Governments,
> > 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,
> 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."
Ohh, I agree with you. The definition is total vaporware and I believe just
compromise to have some outcome from the Tunis meeting and show that
the "experts" were not sun bathing in the Mediterranean Sea.
As George pointed out, there is a great gulf between administration of
> the technical side of the Internet and regulation of the social and
> 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.
IMHO the issue is (as we can see now clearly with ICANN) that there is a
LOT of money in play, so being in the administrative and policy development
ecosystem became a very lucrative biz and career opportunity, and the
parties will try to keep the ball rolling as long as possible.
I never seen on emails so many honorary titles and several paragraph
showing the collection and diversity of hats.
> The best thing the IGF (and the Brazil meeting) could do is ban the
> G word and separate the two discussions.
That's a very clever suggestion, that will leave as with IF ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the I-coordination