[discuss] Problem definition 1, version 5
mariliamaciel at gmail.com
Wed Jan 22 20:55:43 UTC 2014
> 3) denationalization, i.e., delegation to a transnational private actor
Could we really say that delegation to a transnational private actor means
to "de-nationalize"? I tend to think this is over-simplification. This
private actor may not have a corresponding nationality in the sense that a
country does. But if we zoom in and look inside it, there are other issues
to take into account. Where is it based? What is its institutional culture?
Where is its staff from? Who are the members? Do vocal people inside it
really correspond to a global diversity of views? There are many different
ways in which apparently de-nationalized transnational actors may in fact
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oscar A. Robles-Garay [mailto:orobles at nic.mx]
> >I don't see (yet) "denationalization" as an option,
> >I don't think we have something besides (or parallel) to
> >that can exert authority (the right to exert violence) over a
> relationship among individuals.
> You're wrong. You have a lot of history to read. There are many examples
> of nonstate actors governing key sectors, but rather than cite them all I
> will simply refer you to the White Paper that established ICANN, which
> actually pledged to denationalize, 15 years ago, or to the RIRs, which you
> may be associated with. I'd be happy to explain in more detail offline, or
> I can refer you to Networks and States.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss