This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list.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

[I-coordination] Fwd: Europe at a tipping point?

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at
Mon Dec 16 23:34:26 CET 2013


Good evening; in a competitive environment losing ones ability to provide
services (an accredited ICANN Registrar that goes bad) seems to me to be an
effective sanction. Does not always need a government law.



From:  Mike Roberts <mmr at>
Date:  Monday, December 16, 2013 9:01 PM
To:  "i-coordination at" <i-coordination at>
Subject:  [I-coordination] Fwd:  Europe at a tipping point?

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>
> Subject: Re: [I-coordination] Europe at a tipping point?
> Date: December 16, 2013 12:26:58 PM PST
> To: "Dr. Ben Fuller" <ben at>
> Cc: "i-coordination at" <i-coordination at>
>> On Dec 16, 2013, at 1:08 PM, "Dr. Ben Fuller" <ben at> 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.
> Regards
> Jorge
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5027 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the I-coordination mailing list