<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr">The premise is doubtful. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Did all those treaties work out that well in fact? </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">I remember taking a truck to a boat to a taxi to post office, then waiting for an hour to have a 10-minute phone call with my grandparents in a tiny booth, along with my brothers and sisters. That hit the family budget hard. We got to do that once a year, as a special treat, while in Kenya. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Make no mistake, the rates were set by a coterie of state monopolists and large corporations who played that role in some countries. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Now those calls are free, and no travel necessary. Is that due to treaties? That cannot be said. They were not a good thing unless you were wealthy. The rest of us were sending mail on onion-skin paper to save on the postage. </div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Dec 25, 2023, at 01:52, Evan Leibovitch via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 at 12:35 AM Barry Shein via At-Large <<a href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>> wrote:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
I'd also point out that the global<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span>voice phone network, postal systems, package delivery, various forms<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span>of travel, at least, also had a "one world" goal.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Sure, and we actually got there. To sort out standards and interoperability between the countries of the world, we used these archaic things called "treaties", managed by purpose-built intergovernmental organizations, that have to date worked out pretty well over the decades. We've had ITU for phones since 1865, UPU for mail since 1874, and ICAO for air travel since 1947. Treaties were messy to make and occasionally get abused but have worked out relatively well. Traditionally in these operations, governments and the public interest drive decision-making, while business interests serve in an advisory role, usually through industry associations. As a result, major decisions made by such bodies usually have force of law among treaty signatories.<br></div></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">But the Internet world thought it knew better; it consciously and deliberately chose a different path. It bypassed the messiness of treaty-making and let industry make decisions while governments and the public interest were relegated to dispensable advisory roles. <br></div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Generally this has worked, if only by accident and fortune. In the case of purely technical bodies such as IETF, W3C and ICANN's *SACs, decisions and standards have been generally accepted on technical merit; yet they still don't have the power of treaties behind them. Any sovereign jurisdiction can trivially choose to opt out, jeopardizing its own interoperability with the rest of the world but otherwise not breaking international law.</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Decisions involving politics, money or other non-technical factors have a tougher path. Institutions must make visible and ongoing efforts to sustain
legitimacy,
and these decisions often need to be promoted through marketing
campaigns or other forms of collective begging. Two perfect example
subjects of such begging are IPv6 and Internationalised Domain Names. And without force of treaty, dealing with obvious abuses (such as the continued presence of .su) have no means of enforcement.</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">(IMO, ICANN actually did come close to "apocalyptic disaster" in 2020 -- whether it knew it or not at the time -- but was saved at the last minute by the California Attorney General)
</div></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Every time ICANN or its pieces envision an existential threat, vested interests always hold up ITU as a boogeyman just waiting to consume ICANN were it to falter. At this time it would be difficult to demonstrate that an ITU-ran domain namespace would have botched as many public interest issues as ICANN has. Or maybe not the ITU, but another purpose-built treaty-based IGO.<br></div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">And in the same period we began to understand the negative aspects of<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span>globalization like nuclear-tipped ICBMs and pollution (particularly<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span>the CO2 responsible for climate change) which also know no political<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span>boundaries tho don't require interoperability with their target other<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span>than the laws of physics.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Funny how even for those issues there are international treaties and conventions and IGOs. The Internet stands alone as being the one phenomenon of global public interest without treaties behind it (or even in the works). The UN tasked the IGF with coming up with a usable path forward, and it has failed pretty hard at that task.</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Maybe the WSIS follow-ups can start afresh, so the world can set some standards for the app- and island- and AI-centric future Internet that Karl described. And maybe this reboot could at last put the public interest at the forefront rather than an afterthought. Maybe, even, mention of the "T" word to ensure that Internet openness is maintained by law rather than whim.</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Happy holidays,</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br></div></div></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:12.8px">Evan Leibovitch, <span style="font-size:12.8px">Toronto Canada</span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">@evanleibovitch / </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">@el56</span></div></div></div></div>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>At-Large mailing list</span><br><span>At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</span><br><span>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</span><br><span></span><br><span>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org</span><br><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.</span></div></blockquote></body></html>