This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to firstname.lastname@example.org. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.
[I-coordination] Fwd: Europe at a tipping point?
mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us
Mon Dec 16 22:01:12 CET 2013
The hard issue is not the articulation of a set of overarching principles for the Internet, it is with the regime for sanctioning behavior that departs from the Principles.
Governance inherently involves sanctions for lack of adherence to Principles. Much of the fussing about Internet Governance is related to the lack of an obvious means of remedying bad behavior.
(ICANN dodged this bullet by relying on U.S. contract law and essentially creating a "take it or leave it" situation for affected parties.)
Various entities, especially governments, seem to believe that oversight of the Internet can be accomplished within existing national governments and legal systems. Others feel vehemently that something new is needed.
If it is new, then to be useful, there must be effective sanctions embodied in it. That's the crux of the problem.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [I-coordination] Europe at a tipping point?
> Date: December 16, 2013 12:26:58 PM PST
> To: "Dr. Ben Fuller" <ben at fuller.na>
> Cc: "i-coordination at nro.net" <i-coordination at nro.net>
>> On Dec 16, 2013, at 1:08 PM, "Dr. Ben Fuller" <ben at fuller.na> wrote:
>> The comments here are quite appropriate. The Internet is both a massive network of networks that requires rigorous technical standards to operate effectively and a phenomenon of massive socioeconomic impact that touches on many social and legal issues at global, national and local levels. These two 'realms' are distinct and at the same time connected to where they have the potential to impact each other. Each may require a different way of governing as well as strategies to get its decisions implemented. Each may require its own set of stakeholders for a multi stakeholder approach.
> This is IHMO absolutely correct and the main driver of my previous comments about the need to split the discussions and focus on the specific issues we know exist today, at the macro not micro level, so a viable framework can be developed. There are issues that can and must be regulated, others that require just coordination and cooperation, but one size fits all under the "Governance" word will never work, will never happen.
> It is like we are trying to make a wall picture of Internet Governance using the pieces of multiple puzzles that we put and mixed together in a common bowl. We may have an idea on how the final picture has to look like but unless we separate the pieces of each puzzle and we put skilled hands to work with them we will get nowhere.
> Meanwhile the shows goes on and we keep finding creative ways on how to milk from the I* and other organizations coffers.
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at nro.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the I-coordination