ICANN Board Withholds Consent for a Change of Control of the Public Interest Registry (PIR)

[lists@icann.guru]

They ran a scammy IEO and got shutdown, excellent example of a good open market working.


---
James Gannon
On 5/13/2020 7:39:49 PM, dorothy g <dgdorothydg at gmail.com> wrote:
This is an interesting ideological debate,  so Milton what do you say about this latest development?  Not NCSG related but with reference to 'open' markets. Open for who?
https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/64955/telegram-founder-pavel-durov-says-the-firms-ton-blockchain-project-is-over [https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/64955/telegram-founder-pavel-durov-says-the-firms-ton-blockchain-project-is-over]

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 3:37 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu [mailto:milton at gatech.edu]> wrote:

Nuno, just had time to catch up with this
 
> you also write "Worldwide,
> the existence of open competitive markets has done more to support, strengthen
> and expand access to information and communications than any nonprofit or
> government program.". 
 
> You surely know this is not at all fair nor true, 
 
Sorry, but it is true. Of course it was a broad statement, and there may be minor areas one could quibble about, but it could be backed up with a vast amount of scholarly literature. There are so many cases and research articles contrasting telecommunications penetration pre and post liberalization, as well as statistical studies looking at Internet development rates which show that more open and competitive markets are strongly correlated with broader access in countries. It would be very hard for you to cite examples to the contrary, but I am open to any concrete cases you care to provide.
 
I knew perfectly well when writing that that people ideologically opposed to markets would be challenged, which is precisely why I wrote it. We need to give up old fantasies and face reality about info and telecom development. The record is pretty clear and I ‘ve been tracking it since the 1980s. It doesn’t mean that there are no problems associated with the transition, or that everything is fine and rosy in all places, but it does mean that competitive markets did a better job than state monopolies.
 
> You surely know that if not for the ARPANET government program, there would be no Internet. 
 
Yes, the initial development of the internet protocol was subsidized by ARPA. But the military had no intention and no plan to create a global internet (indeed, it was not so happy about it). The important fact about the government role was that it was non-proprietary, which meant that the govt could not control it. Surely you understand that creating the protocol did not create “the internet.” People in numerous sectors and countries had to adopt the protocol, commercial internet service providers had to emerge, web sites and applications had to be developed, and it’s all quite clear that this was primarily a market-driven process. This does not even mention the explosion of the integrated circuit and personal computer industries, and the reliance of internet growth on the unbundling, de-monopolization and commercialization of telecom infrastructure. Even China introduced significant amounts of commercialization and competition into its sector.
 
> You surely know that, because there is no such thing as "worldwide", there are many particular and fragile realities, and there are places where the "open competitive markets" do not or cannot exist. 
 
Tell me when, where and why open competitive markets “cannot exist.” Bear in mind that you are, as you say, a network scientist, not an economist of a public policy expert.
 
And this is the fundamental problem you fail to address in your article. While trying to answer the question for the "worldwide", you miss, forget, leave behind the most fragile of the communities. 
 
I know I am supposed to be intimidated by this standard appeal to “fragile communities” but I’m not. Africa is typically what people consider a left behind or fragile community. Please look at the facts regarding the growth of mobile telecommunications in Africa before and after competition via mobile phones was introduced. It is a stunning record of growth and progress after decades of 1% penetration. Look at the record of monopoly and how protectionism is still invoked by dictatorships in countries like Egypt or Iran. I really don’t understand why the role of commercial markets in advancing access is considered controversial, except for the fact that it conflicts with entrenched ideologies.
 
 
Dr. Milton L Mueller
School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
[IGP_logo_gold block_email sig]
 
 
 


--


stay well, kind regards
Dorothy Gordon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200513/d7fb1cd9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2688 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200513/d7fb1cd9/attachment.jpg>