[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG

Thu Dec 26 21:37:46 UTC 2013

I don't think the use of the word "governance" implies in any way that governments will or should be involved.  This is just a mis-impression.

As was pointed out earlier on this list, "internet governance" is equivalent to "corporate governance."  "Corporate governance" simply means the system of rules, practices and processes that a corporation chooses to govern itself.  Here's a definition from Investopedia:

The system of rules, practices and processes by which a company is directed and controlled. Corporate governance essentially involves balancing the interests of the many stakeholders in a company - these include its shareholders, management, customers, suppliers, financiers, government and the community. Since corporate governance also provides the framework for attaining a company's objectives, it encompasses practically every sphere of management, from action plans and internal controls to performance measurement and corporate disclosure.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporategovernance.asp

While the choices that the corporation can make are limited by the laws of the relevant jurisdiction, the government does not participate in the governance of any particular corporation (e.g., there is no government representative on the Board, or a "government advisory committee" for the corporation).  It's about self-governance.

Similarly, discussions of Internet Governance are meant to cover how the Internet governs itself.  If national governments are stakeholders, they should be part of Internet Governance.  Whether and to what extent they occupy a fundamentally different position than every other stakeholder class -- by dint of their sovereign status, the "rule of law" or other political or policy factors -- is an interesting and fundamental question.  I expect governments have one answer, and other stakeholders may or may not agree with that answer (to a greater or lesser degree).  I expect some stakeholders to be strenuously opposed to the government position.

Personally, I find multistakeholder government of the Internet to be one of the grand experiments of our age.  The more that governments become central to IG, and IG becomes more multilateral and less multistakeholder, the more that experiment diminishes.

Greg Shatan

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:52 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG

On Dec 26, 2013, at 2:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a sort of generic reply to the points John makes below and to
> a comment Avri made:
>
> IMHO the word "governance" instantly attracts the attention of
> officials and politicians.

Likely to be true, particularly given its translation in some languages (or so I am told)  I'm not certain what officials and politicians are doing reading RFCs (and if that's really the case, can we substitute them for folks who go to WG meetings without having read the drafts? ;-)

> It is my contention that the technical community has erred seriously
> by using the word "governance" far too liberally to describe matters
> that are technical in nature, thereby creating a very real risk of
> government intervention where it is not needed.

That might be true, but it would depend on what areas you refer to...
can you be a little more specific?

The counterpoint is that the technically community has often discounted the real-world public policy implications of its work, with the result being lack of government engagement where it's needed.  To be specific, there are often underlying assumptions that the only effective approach in areas such an unsolicited bulk email, viruses and botnets is improved countermeasures, whereas actual engagement with governments working a common framework of mechanisms (technical, operational, _and_ legal) against the underlying phenomena might yield more effective results.

> The same applies to the word "policy", for which I bear some of the
> blame, having used it when drafting the document that became the
> IETF-IANA memorandum of understanding published as RFC 2860.

Rest easy - I'm fairly confident that the increasing attention of governments to the Internet is because they see its economic and social importance to their citizens, and yet cannot discern who is in charge and/or more specifically how chronic problems get resolved (as opposed to being result of any particular term of art in documents that the technical community publishes.)

/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

                                                                * * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.

                                                                * * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
                                                                        Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00