This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org.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] New: How do we dissect Internet governance? [Was: Europe at a tipping point?]

John Springer springer at inlandnet.com
Wed Dec 18 08:16:23 CET 2013


this is really hard to interpret who is who

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> >Does anyone resonate to Ben Fuller's attempt to separate some of the components of INternet >governance:
> 
>> 
> >1. Technical
> 
> >2. Community centered
> 
> >3. Cross cutting
> 
>> 
> >Or Brian Carpenter's recent proposed rider:
> 
>> 
> >Internet governance does not concern the administration of
> >technical parameters of the Internet that affect its inner
> >workings rather than way it is used by society.
> 
>  
> 
> With all due respect, neither of these constructs gets us any traction on any of the important issues.
> 
>  
> 
> Brian?s ?rider? is a proposition that is patently false. Many governments have tried, and some have succeeded, in affecting ?the way the
> internet is used by society? by regulating, influencing or controlling the administration of technical parameters. George ? you
> mentioned ?common sense and thinking? ? well, think about it commonsensically for two seconds. If a government decides to order the ISPs
> in its jurisdiction to block access to specific IP addresses, or specific domains, so that users cannot gain access to forbidden content
> hosted on those IP addresses/domains, then it is regulating use by intervening in the ?administration of technical parameters?that
> affect the Internet?s inner workings.? If a government goes further and seizes control of the allocation and assignment of IP addresses
> (e.g., licensing them the way radio spectrum bands are licensed or as printing presses used to be licensed), then the two are linked
> even closer. There are many other possible examples.
> 
>  
> 
> I am not _advocating_  that governments or others do this, I am simply telling you that it is a fact that they can and sometimes do. We
> probably agree that it would be a very bad thing if they did. But Brian and certain others seem to be incapable of making the
> distinction between what really happens in the world and what they would prefer to see happen. It seems that their purpose in
> introducing the artificial distinction between ?use by society? and ?administration of technical parameters? is the vain hope that by
> verbally separating these two things that somehow interventions designed to control the internet will magically disappear. Got news for
> ya: they won?t. You are just proposing to bury your head in the sand.  
> 
>  
> 
> >Can we effectively separate out those functions that deal completely with Internet technical >operation and administration, or not?  
> 
>  
> 
> No.
> 
>  
> 
> >If not, why not?  In the latter case, examples would really >be helpful to understand that
> 
> >point of view.
> 
>  
> 
> You?ve already been given several examples. Radio spectrum licensing was one. Domain names and trademarks mandatory dispute resolution
> policies were another. Please stop ignoring them.
> 
>  
> 
> Here is another. George Sadowsky voted against ICANN?s addition of new top level domains. He believed, sincerely I think, that the
> addition of new unique character strings to the root zone (a matter of technical management) would result in internet uses that are not
> in the public interest (a public policy judgment). In other words, he linked technical administration and use regulation. When he did
> that, he was refuting the arguments made here more effectively than anything I can add.
> 
>  
> 
> --MM
> 
> 
>


More information about the I-coordination mailing list