<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Milton, <br>
<br>
Thanks for the comment. It contributes to a historical perspective
here. I would like to add two observations. <br>
<ul>
<li>First, I agree completely that there is "<i>...certain
naivety about the treatment of states as “stakeholders”...</i>",
a naivety that underestimates the power that states might
exercise with regard to Internet Governance in other
multilateral settings. <br>
</li>
<li>The second observation is that whatever happens in the short
term with regard to the (maybe) transition of IANA oversight,
the multistakeholder model is a bit like a frog in a food
blender. It is going to have to swim like heck to stay afloat
and not be sliced and diced by the spinning blades of
government and commercial interests. </li>
</ul>
<p>Sam L. <br>
</p>
On 9/22/2016 10:53 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:SN2PR0701MB7333032C060A715BC4E9877A1C90@SN2PR0701MB733.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.PChar
{mso-style-name:"P Char";
mso-style-link:P;
mso-fareast-language:EN-IN;}
p.P, li.P, div.P
{mso-style-name:P;
mso-style-link:"P Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
line-height:200%;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-IN;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Sam<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I’ve
written a lot of scholarly papers about just that topic.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Here
is an excerpt:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="P" style="line-height:normal"><font color="#990000"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif;" lang="EN-IN">“</span><span
lang="EN-IN">A political tension between the
transnational, private sector-led organizations/governance
mechanisms characteristic of the Internet and the
sovereignty-based governance of national and
intergovernmental institutions has been a recurring
feature of the evolution of Internet governance.
Multi-stakeholder entities are IOs that serve as a bridge
between these two worlds. Multi-stakeholderism inserts
representatives of civil society and the private sector
into intergovernmental proceedings, more or less as peers.
The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is the main
multistakeholder organization. It was expressly created by
the World Summit on the Information Society to serve such
a bridging function. The IGF itself sits in a sometimes
uncomfortable place between the two worlds. It is part of
the UN system but must raise its own money as it is not
guaranteed funds from the general budget like a UN bureau
would be. The IGF runs an open annual meeting that
typically attracts about 2,000 people, where the problems
of Internet governance are discussed in a nonbinding
dialogue. The program of the IGF is established by a
Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group which contains
representatives from governments, business, and civil
society. Since the first meeting of the IGF in 2006,
regional and national IGFs have proliferated which
reproduce this pattern locally.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<font color="#990000">
</font>
<p class="P" style="line-height:normal"><font color="#990000"><span
lang="EN-IN"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<font color="#990000">
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#990000">Some writers use a
broader definition of multi-stakeholder; they would
categorize ICANN and the RIRs, for example, as
multi-stakeholder institutions or as exemplars of “the
multi-stakeholder model.” But it is important to remember
that the label “multi-stakeholder” was only applied to ICANN
and the RIRs retroactively, in the wake of the battles over
Internet governance during the World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS). And the concept does not apply
to the IETF at all, because it is based entirely on
individual participation not on classes of “stakeholders.”
In fact, the term “multi-stakeholder” was applied to the
organically developed Internet institutions after the WSIS
debates only as a kind of political ploy: to leverage the
rhetoric of broader inclusion and representation that civil
society activists had brought into the UN system during WSIS
and make the Internet institutions more palatable to states
and the UN system. The fact remains, however, that the
original Internet institutions were private sector-led forms
of self-governance that in some ways were intended to
exclude or avoid governments. The White Paper that
established the basis for the ICANN regime, for example,
described it as a ‘privatization’ of the DNS. Only
<i>after</i> governments asserted themselves in the WSIS
process was the term ‘multi-stakeholder’ applied to ICANN,
the RIRs, and IETF. The tendency now is to consider
governments as “stakeholders” on a par with private sector
and civil society organizations. Governmental participation
as peers, however, almost never works because of their
inherently bureaucratic and hierarchical structure, and
their ability to overrule or even repress other stakeholder
groups. While in some sense states are also network
operators and users and thus share many concerns with other
stakeholders, there is a certain naivety about the treatment
of states as “stakeholders” when the pre-existing political
and governance system is built around the notion of states
as sovereign decision-makers who are above specific
stakeholder groups.</font><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
NCSG-Discuss [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Sam Lanfranco<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 22, 2016 9:39 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: IANA<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is a question for one of us with a
longer history with ICANN than I have.
<br>
<br>
I have noticed that the language used to discuss the
history leading up to the transition of IANA oversight the
wording does not
<br>
refer to ICANN as a not-for-profit multistakeholder
organization but instead uses variations on the term
"private and international".
<br>
Most recently this appears in Wolfgang's piece in
circleid.com where he writes:<br>
<br>
<span style="color:#660000">"...the privatization
and internationalization of the management of Internet
core resources."<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160921_breaking_nonsense_ted_cruz_iana_transition_and_irony_of_life/"
target="_blank">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160921_breaking_nonsense_ted_cruz_iana_transition_and_irony_of_life/</a><br>
<br>
</span>I assume there is some history to using the words
"private" and "international" rather than "not-for-profit"
and "multistakeholder".
<br>
Can someone shed some light on this?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
Sam L.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca">Lanfran@Yorku.ca</a> Skype: slanfranco
blog: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com">http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com</a>
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852</pre>
</body>
</html>