[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG
jmamodio at gmail.com
Sat Dec 28 14:48:13 UTC 2013
comments below ...
>> Governance is social steering. Governance is not government. Governance
>> is not necessarily top down. Governance takes many forms and is arrived at
>> through many paths, collective action—e.g. coordination and
>> collaboration---being one of them. etc etc etc.
> That is not the interpretation on the Spanish speaking part of the world
> We sorted this linguistic problem with the governments from Spanish
> speaking countries in 2005. Raul, Carlos, others can recount…but who
> knows, people cycle in and out, nobody reads through the institutional
> memory…maybe we will have to start over.
I know, but as you may also know many heads of state have changed since
2005 and as it is not uncommon in some developing countries, the new
administration brings their own people and throw through the window
whatever the previous administration did and institutional memory is an
illusion where some governments even change history to benefit their
And it is not just social steering, corporate governance in many cases turn
> not to be very social :-)
> I really like the definition in Wikipedia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance, that if used on Internet
> Governance translates into the act of Governing the Internet…
> Really? I think the wikipedia piece on governance is as horrible as the
> one on Internet governance. Sometimes the wisdom of crowds doesn’t quite
> manage to reveal itself.
Bingo !!! you took the bait :-), absolutely correct, that is a terrible
definition but helps to show what the "crowd" interpret as "governance." In
our little ecosystem after many years of chewing on definitions and
acronyms we more or less settled on a set of acceptable and working
definitions (such as the WISIS def for IG.) But for the general public (the
crowd) and for those that don't give a squat or care what I* is, Governance
by default equates to Government, ugggghhhh ...
Problem is, that despite the countless hours of discussions, meetings,
flying circus, conference calls, and so on, for many governments,
Governance is their turf, and the perception is that they need to be in
control of it whatever it means, and when there is no choice and must
coordinate/cooperate with other governments, it is a bilateral or
multilateral relationship. And that is the freaky word **multilateral** ...
> Now we can talk about governance of different entities such as ICANN,
> ISOC, etc, but that is more in line with corporate governance than the
> overall Internet Governance idea, and that many (surprisingly some of them
> call themselves experts) point to ICANN as the Mecca of Internet Governance.
> Wow, if ICANN’s mecca, I must be facing the wrong direction…:-)
I'll search for it and re-post the link to a paper/document mentioned here
that on its first paragraph points as ICANN being such thing, not the exact
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss