On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Governments cannot control the Internet, they can only ruin it. Then > again, that should not be much of a surprise. > +1 hence the source of the term "Internet deferagmentation". Not allowing govt participate in the coordination processes of the internet would only justify their need to further "defragment" the Internet. Regards > > avri > > > On 15-Aug-15 09:46, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !