I haven't really followed the Internet Domain Name System (DNS) discussions as presented by the Canadian Government or by those debating the issues (mostly from a US perspective) in the various discussion forums on the Internet although I've now read the various White and Green Papers. I have very little to add to "that" discussion in that much of it is presented within a technical or commercial framework of which I have little knowledge. However, the discussion around the DNS is also often presented as a discussion of "Internet Governance" since the framework of funding, contracts and technical and policy committees/working groups is what currently passes for the governing framework of the global Internet. The process of changing and re-forging a means for managing the global Domain Name System in fact would appear to be a surrogate for the process of creating a global system of Internet governance. On this latter issue I do have some observations. I have a strong measure of concern that the decisions about what will be the on-going structure of the Internet, is being presented as in the first instance a technical issue (DNS) and in the second a "commercial" issue, i.e. how to ensure "competition" in the DNS allocation process. If we phrase the question in the broader terms of what an appropriate framework for global governance of the Internet should be, then we are probably discussing the "real" question. Also this is a question on which many, not just the technical few who understand the "arcania" of such things as DNS, may have an informed opinion. The issues of how the Internet governance strategy being proposed by the US will impact on an objective of "universal access" in Canada or in other less economically fortunate countries are nowhere discussed in the draft Canadian position paper. Also there is no discussion on how a "privatized" Internet governance will accommodate the need for public service uses of the Net or even whether a "privatized" model is appropriate for what is likely to be a highly significant component of "civic" as well as "commercial" life in the future. There is a theme running through the document which seems to suggest that the only interest which Canadians might have in the future of global Internet governance is somehow linked into commercial needs and electronic commerce. However, of course, there are a variety of other uses including education, health services, economic development in lagging regions, public information and not least the opportunity for enhancing public participation in civil society to which the Internet can and very likely will be put. Rather than sliding by inadvertence (or by misdirection) into a global system of Internet governance which may or may not be appropriate to the broader and longer term aspirations of Canadians (or others) for the Internet, it is probably more appropriate to open up the issue of Internet governance to a more broadly based and encompassing discussion. The current questioning to which the global financial system as promoted by the IMF is being subject, and the likely reforms to that system reflecting the current economic crises, should give pause to those who want to "cast in stone" current partial approaches to governance (privatization, commercialization) which may or may not be appropriate in the longer term. I think that it is not completely unrealistic to be thinking about the establishment of a global Internet governance system in the context of the establishment of the global governance system of the future. As increasing volumes of commerce and information intensive activities (administration, education, health) are "virtualized" and distributed on and through the "net", the significance of localized boundaries will alter substantially if not diminish significantly. How the "landscape" of the emerging virtual world is carved up, and more importantly how it is managed and administered may have crucial long term significance for how resources are managed and distributed, how participation in decision making is achieved (or blocked), and how power is exerted in the real world as opposed to the virtual one. Decisions made now about what may appear to be relatively obscure technical matters may have truly profound implications as those decisions become embedded in practices and procedures (and not to say software and hardware designs) the cost to alter and significance of which we can currently barely discern. The implicit reference here to the y2k seismic fault line, which governments and individuals are at this moment trying to find some way of coping with, should not go unnoticed. My own suggestion would be that decisions around issues of Internet governance be not entered into hastily or without due deliberation and widespread and informed consultation. The issues are not simply technical or commercial and should not be allowed to enter into a "default" mode because of their being placed in too narrow a frame of reference. The issues of Internet governance require a broad base of consultation including full and informed participation from those with interests which are non-technical and non-commercial. In addition they should be seen within the broadest possible global context including effective participation from the entire global community. Mike Gurstein Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. ECBC/NSERC/SSHRC Associate Chair in the Management of Technological Change Director: Centre for Community and Enterprise Networking (C\CEN) University College of Cape Breton, POBox 5300, Sydney, NS, CANADA B1P 6L2 Tel. 902-563-1369 (o) 902-562-1055 (h) 902-562-0119 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http://ccen.uccb.ns.ca ICQ: 7388855
