Thank you Milton,

yes, I'm aware that the attitude of sovereign states towards the Internet is not unexplored territory,  ;-)

My comment was simply a reminder of the obvious: whether we like it or not, national governments are not about to disappear, and their desire for more control over the Internet is not on the wane. I was not advocating the increase of powers in favour of that segment of the multi-stakeholder system.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.








----- Mail original -----
De: "Milton L Mueller" <[log in to unmask]>
À: [log in to unmask]
Envoyé: Samedi 15 Août 2015 16:44:36
Objet: Re: [Policy] IANA transition and ICANN accountability proposal : NCSG comments

Jean-Jacques

I've written a few things about the relationship between sovereign states and the Internet. ;-) 
You might find the record of a workshop we did - which by the way included some leading political and legal theorists - of interest: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/03/01/cyberspace-and-the-nature-of-the-state/ 

The role you describe has been declining for decades and no longer makes sense in a globally integrated information space. When states attempt to assert territorial sovereignty over a nonterritorial space that is increasingly knitting together a global polity, they are impediments to progress and regressive and repressive elements in the overall picture of Internet governance. Sovereignty means supreme and exclusive authority and 192 "sovereigns" cannot have supreme and exclusive authority over a shared, globalized set of standards, protocols and information flows. 

So in my mind the incursions of governments have to be resisted on principle. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 3:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [Policy] IANA transition and ICANN accountability
> proposal : NCSG comments
> 
> Hello Sam & All,
> 
> taking a broad historical view,
> - to begin with, the Internet was the realm of engineers, academics, military
> personnel;
> - most sovereign states, because their civil servants came from law, macro-
> economics or political "science", did not grasp the potential of the Internet,
> and therefore left it to their technical ministerial departments (telecoms,
> industry...);
> - businesses were quick to espouse the Internet, taking in their wake the
> necessary lawyers for trademarks and litigations, and this may have become
> the single most influential segment of the Internet eco-system;
> - more recently, and for a variety of reasons (strengthen censorship, extend
> surveillance, streamle administrative tasks, reach the electorate more easily,
> most states are simply catching up. This is where we are today.
> 
> Against this background, it seems likely that most sovereign states will seek a
> greater role. That is evident in the GAC, but also more widely. One of the main
> areas of competition for them is representation of the public interest, where
> they generally do not take a favourable view of NGOs or other elements of
> civil society, because the latter occupy a space which, in political theory,
> belongs first and foremost to sovereign states.
> 
> Reports on the future of the Internet (Ilves Commission and others), the
> pursuit of a universal forum (IGF), various initiatives to enhance the multi-
> stakeholder model (MSM) (e.g. NetMundial Initiative), none of these
> proposes, nor will bring about, a lesser role of governments.
> 
> The challenge today is
> - to recognize that sovereign states will not abandon what they see as their
> self-evident place in Internet governance;
> - taking that as a given, how can we strengthen the MSM in a way that does
> not push states towards an alternative to MSM, such as national Intranets, i.e.
> terminating the single, universally compatible Internet as most of us know it
> today?
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Sam Lanfranco" <[log in to unmask]>
> À: [log in to unmask]
> Envoyé: Mercredi 12 Août 2015 15:58:16
> Objet: Re: [Policy] IANA transition and ICANN accountability proposal : NCSG
> comments
> 
> 
> 
> I have a shorter history observing the role of GAC inside ICANN, but a longer
> history of observing governments, and I am the position that the transition
> should take place keeping GAC pretty much in its existing advisory role where
> there are, and will be, continues pressures for role modification. It would
> open up a very dangerous and destabilizing struggle if “...the GAC dissented
> from whatever Dublin adopts”.
> 
> 
> We need to keep a collaborative element to the struggles for position within
> ICANN. Moving to a pure adversarial stance in this area would be a lose-lose
> recipe for disaster.
> 
> Sam L.