[NA-Discuss] Foreign Policy and the Internet

Bob Bruen bruen at coldrain.net
Tue Aug 14 22:24:16 UTC 2012


Well, the response to what I thought was just a side comment was 
surprising. Anyone who thinks that future governments or CEO's or whatever 
will always do the same thing as those who came before is simply not 
paying attention.

The world has cooperated on air traffic, telephones, currency, the 
Olympics among other things. All of these agreements/traditions have been 
compromised at one time or another, like when the US athletes were not 
allowed to participate in the Olympics as a protest for Russian military 

Leaders do not always do what is smart or right, even if they are trying 
to. ICANN's relationship with the world is evolving and will continue to 
do so. The environment we all live in is changing as well, and no one 
group has control. Therefore predicting that the status quo will remain 
the same silly at best. Recall Yogi Berra, "Predicting is hard, especially 
about the future."


On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> On 14 August 2012 16:57, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
>> I'm unable to envision an *enlightened, informed* administration risking
>> the consequences of making changes requested by governments unreasonably
>> conditional.
> Those qualifiers [emphasis mine] make all the difference IMO.
> So far, evidence of enlightenment and awareness is scarce, as witnessed by
> the congressional hearings latest December (to which the ALAC responded).
> What is just as possible, based on observation,  is cynical manipulation of
> processes to keep other would-be actors at bay, both internal and external.
> The US DoC may not really prefer the multi-stakeholder model better than
> any other, but cheerleading it serves as a useful tactic to quell the
> aspirations of other countries who have woken up to the fact that the US is
> no longer the home of a plurality of the world's Internet users.
> It may be considered distasteful to have this debate enter into the realm
> of foreign policy, but I think it is unrealistic to believe that three
> years from now global Internet governance -- and the evaluation of ICANN's
> suitability to continue in its roles -- will still be considered a purely
> US domestic matter. And it is similarly unreasonable to expect that the
> ALAC, as one of the most geographically balanced stakeholder entities
> within ICANN, will condone -- let alone encourage -- long term continued US
> monopoly control of resource governance.
> I think the ALAC and At-Large have a role to play in helping ICANN becoming
> more globally accountable. The AoC was merely a first step, and even that
> is badly flawed in its execution. The R3 white paper, which I helped author
> together with former GAC, ccNSO and ICANN Board members, helps chart out
> the issues and suggest possible remedies. This paper has already been
> requested by many GAC and Board members as major internal overhauls are
> contemplated to address both changes within ICANN's community and external
> political pressures.
> - Evan
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------

Dr. Robert Bruen
Cold Rain Labs

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list