Future Internet Governance? Internet Governance as Piñata

736 views
662 views

Published on

Slides used in a debate on a "third way" for Internet Governance at CITI, Columbia University, Nov. 12, 2013.

Discusses Internet Governance issues; refutes "one governance" for the whole Internet. Provides graphic on function and scaling of Internet Governance mechanisms.

Among the participants were Eli Noam, Milton Mueller, Fred Goldstein, Lorenzo Pupillo, and John Curran.

Creative Commons License CC-BY-SA-NC

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
736
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
33
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Future Internet Governance? Internet Governance as Piñata

  1. 1. Future Internet Governance? Internet Governance as Piñata Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM) Internet Society Mexico
  2. 2. Internet Governance as Piñata • Beat hard but don’t break – resilient • Bring it out in times of need • Especially domain names because they seem understandable • 1996-1999 formation of ICANN • 2003-2005 WSIS • 2013 post-Snowden • Kick the can to “Internet Governance” to avoid hard work of “Snooping Governance”
  3. 3. One Internet… one Governance? • Bottom-up, edge-inwards, problem-focussed – let’s call it heuristic approach • Layers and segmentation • Parametrize on “other governance” eg ISO 3166-MA for country codes • IETF – standards development • IANA then ICANN – central identifiers coordination • M3AAWG – spam, then messaging abuse • APWG – phishing • Intellectual property (view outside US: your funny ways of mixing authors rights, patents and trademarks) • Rights and abuse • National and subnational regimes
  4. 4. Technical infusion in Internet Governance • Internet as produced environment – much more so than any construct like “the environment”, the sea, space, Antarctica (which also have multistakeholder governance to some extent) • Social and legal constructs can mandate technology only so much, esp. from top
  5. 5. So again, ONE governance? • Single ceiling, umbrella, gearbox, fish school? (no can do) • “Fish school” coordination an option • Test for types of Internet Governance according to mission, effectiveness, scalability • And mind the scale factors! – Is it numbers? Of what? (people, countries, domain names, TLDs, )
  6. 6. Multistakeholder governance effectiveness and scalability Scales to large Doesn’t scale “Magic path” Doesn’t work Works to mission

×