[NCUC-DISCUSS] Fadi's strategy panels

[David Cake]

Bertrand put this pretty well at the Australian IGF on Wednesday as 'Internet Governance can mean governance OF the internet, and governance ON the internet. Governance of the Internet exists and works, governance on the Internet is almost non-existent' would be a rough paraphrase. ICANN is a major part of the system that does governance of the Internet itself. But there are numerous issues that involve goverance ON the Internet, and creep into content regulation - and while the I* bodies avoid doing them, bodies like the ITU will use them as justification for becoming involved in Internet governance. Like it or not, although they creep into content regulation, an area that leaves free speech lovers quite uncomfortable, governments of the world see a need for international cooperation on issues like spam, phishing, botnets, copyright enforcement, etc. Either we in the ICANN (and other parts of the I* world, particularly ISOC) can be part of efforts to create means for broader Internet governance on the multistakeholder model, or we can watch governments try to create it.

My impression is that the Montevideo Statement is essentially senior members of the technical community, who have tried for a long time to keep Internet governance restricted to governance of the Internets technical functions, are realising that that strategy is no longer sufficient, and seizing the opportunity of historically low enthusiasm for the USG central role to attempt to create a mechanism for broader Internet governance that the multistakeholder community can live with. 

And ICANN, as it happens, has just set up some panels that will be discussing these issues (among others). That they are bringing in people outside ICANN isn't a coincidence, I think. Fadi knows that there are potentially seismic changes to the landscape under way, and these panels are intended to help ICANN navigate through that. That doesn't mean that ICANN should become an organisation for broader Internet governance, but it will have to reconsider its role if there was a multi-stakeholder organisation that did effectively deal with some of the broader internet governance issues. 

I do not think we should ignore them. And I think we may have cause to be very thankful that we have such an experienced and engaged advocate as Wolfgang on one of the more important panels. 

Cheers

David

On 18/10/2013, at 9:49 AM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Didn't finish writing the previous message ...
> 
> Nowhere in the Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation there is a mention to "Internet Governance," if we want to get on the IG arena we are obviously free to create a new organization with true membership and where we can have better representation and accountability. 
> 
> I'm not discounting ICANN being part of the dialog, but Internet Governance is way off its mission and responsibilities, ergo ditto for its CEO.
> 
> Many of us could be interested to join this organization or not.
> 
> -J
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20131018/b29cdaf2/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss