At 13:28 10/10/2008, John L wrote:
DOC has, after all, been careful over the years to avoid do anything at the root that would annoy other governments.
I hear you, but it doesn't add up. The DOC has no foreign mandate that I'm aware of, and I have no standing with them as a foreign citizen. So while I see the words on the screen in front of me, I'm a bit confused about whether or not me speaking to them will carry any weight at all, or whether this is just window-dressing.
I read it as primarily an invitation to foreign governments. They can accept comments from anyone, but I agree that individuals outside the US aren't likely to be high on the list of influencers.
R's, John
John, The WSIS (and therefore the USG) has acknowledged the legitimacy of the different poles of the Internet Governance. They are the regalian domain, the private sector, the international organization, the civil-society and progressively the notion of "Internet Community", i.e. the @large or de facto the Internet lead users. The USG is not as fool as Stalin who asked "the Pope? how many armies?". The power on the Internet is a power of technical consensus. That consensus can be politically imposed on Governments, financially purchased from the private sector, dealt with the International Organization, social-engineered for the civil-society, but there is not yet a solution to impose a technical consensus to the ecology of the digital ecosystem. This is what Peter de Blanc (I hope people remember who he was) called "our nuclear arsenal". I am sure serious people at the USG know how serious that comparison stands and prepare carefully their Hyderabad answers, where the real issue will be the ICANN legacy and replacement. Indefatigably, I will repeat that this will be decided by the @larges, through what the can do and what other decision maker believe they can do. Indefatigably, I will repeat that ICANN makes the decision through the way they relate with and use the ALAC. jfc