[discuss] ICANN policy and "Internet Governance"

[Michel Gauthier]

At 23:36 05/01/2014, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>From: Michel Gauthier [mailto:mg at telepresse.com]
> >This is something that many have many times explained; "global" 
> means for most
> >"US global control". This is exactly what the world learned 
> recently to distrust.
>
>To me, global means not "inter-national," not "unilateral," 
>but  non-national - excluding also the US, which is after all just 
>another nation-state.

Correct.

But at the same time
- you only consider ICANN, IGF, the RIRs, IETF or any of the other 
institutions engaged with the ARPANET Internetting devised to match 
its ARPA global control. Initially it was ARPA and CCITT, today it is 
NSA and ITU.
- you oppose the non-Syracuse centered CI.

I just try to understand.

>So when the Montevideo statement calls for globalization of the IANA 
>function it was calling for precisely the opposite of "US global control."

This is precisely something for them to document. The more they wait, 
the less they document, the more it looks like as a maneuver.

I expected that you, as an academic, would try to help them and 
document what a global, non localized, catenet should be now the 
internet experiment has been completed?

>  > keeping using the word "global Internet governance" is a 
> (certainly proud, but
> >unambiguous) signal that the Sao Paulo target is to affirm the US 
> leadership on the Internet.
>
>Wrong, wrong, wrong. Do you really think the Brazilians are 
>interested in affirming US leadership?

This is why everyone is interested to know what are the terms of the 
bargain. The silence only tells that the negociation is tough.

> >Is this something that the member of this list confirm?
> > This would confirm the purpose of this list as many analysts understand it.
>
>I would not only not confirm it, I would emphatically deny it.

Thank you for that.
At least you responded. I am still waiting for the responses to my 
questions to brother Carlos Alonzo. His silence most probably means 
that the negociation is not easy. Dilma Rousseff could have been 
trapped into somthing she does not control anymore. Noetworked policy 
on networking is most probably complex.

MG



>Milton Mueller
>Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/