[ga] [Fwd: RE: [governance] IGF workshop: Internet for All (v 2.0)]

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

  FYI, and of course for those that have been paying close
attention Koven and Milton are unfortunately or fortunately,
depending on your political bent, correct.  Koven in particular
as far as the facts are concerned did a good job in articulating
in brief, in correctly outlining what ICANN's direction and
to a degree, dilemma is.

  Everybody got some of what they wanted, but no one got everything
of all of what they wanted/needed in respect to the gTLD and IDN gTLD
decision by ICANN.  Of course much of that decision by ICANN will
need flushing out in detail in the coming months.  What will be
interesting
is to what degree colisions will exist and what "Social Values" of whom
will be impacted vis a vi gTLD's and especially IDN gTLD's.  Ergo,
it is likely that .XXX will be re-approved and the "Social Values"
Social scientests will have something to debate and argue about for
years to come.

  My take is that .XXX for instance will be moved offshore so that
USG influence will be limited, and congress will commence to pass
legislation to mitigate or limit access and under what conditions
access and registration will be allowed as well as determin criminality
of accessing Domain Names in .XXX amongsts other gTLD's and
IDN gTLD's.  China will than not be the only country with a "Great
Firewall".

-------- Original Message --------
   Subject: RE: [governance] IGF workshop: Internet for All (v 2.0)
      Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 04:14:19 -0400
      From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
  Reply-To: governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,"Milton L Mueller"
            <mueller@xxxxxxx>
        To: <governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,<KovenRonald@xxxxxxx>
References: <d10.2d047f76.359d015a@xxxxxxx>

From:KovenRonald@xxxxxxx [mailto:KovenRonald@xxxxxxx]

Yes, Avri --

Reaffirming Art., 29 was the price that our Chinese friends and other
likeminded delegations made us pay for reaffirming Art. 19. That's what
we get for working thru the UN system and illustrates what to expect if
we try to fiddle too much with the ICANN arrangements to which so many
civil society members are allergic. Better the devil you know ...

But Rony, in case you hadn?t noticed, ICANN has NEITHER Article 19 NOR
Article 29 NOR the US First Amendment. And ICANN has just passed (again,
you must not be paying attention) a new gTLD policy that reflects
exactly what your Chinese friends wanted, not to mention European
advocates of other kinds of restrictions on expression. I will send you
the links if you are interested (but I suspect you are not).

Do you like the idea of prior restraint for ALL expression in domain
names? Do you like the idea that a government can object to a name
because it is in a language script that they think they own and they
want a veto power over anyone using {Chinese/Korean/Cyrillic/your
favorite language here}? Do you like the idea of global standards of
?public order and morality? being applied in advance to any and all
applications? I hope you do, because that is all part of the new ICANN
policy.

So before you invoke ICANN pay attention to the facts, please. I really
wonder what you WPFC folks are thinking some times. Does the fact that
ICANN has a ?made in the USA? sticker on it mean that you will defend it
to the death regardless of what it does? There are no allergies here to
ICANN per se or to its model, there are allergies to censorship,
arbitrary power and the like.

Anyway, getting back to Internet for All, it is meaningless to declare
sweeping new ?rights? when the ?right? in question is just a
nice-sounding set of words and one has neither the resources nor c clear
definition of what it means in practice, nor the political consensus and
institutional capacity to deliver it on a global basis. We should rather
be asking, ?what policies have actually succeeded in expanding Internet
access as rapidly as possible and ?what policies do the best job of
ameliorating unacceptable levels of inequality in access?? Those are
realistic questions that can be answered with realistic and
implementable policies. Declaring universal rights makes the declarer
feel righteous but accomplishes nothing else, except perhaps to devalue
the more fundamental rights that are still not being protected.

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance