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 !