Internet Governance and Governments

April 14

Today we revisit a topic that began in the first class day and has run throughout: who should control the Internet, and how. Three different powers have come to fill that role at the largest levels: governments, corporations, and multistakeholder organizations. Each will invariably have some role to play in how the Internet is run at various levels, but what is the right balance of power? What calibration of powers is most beneficial to the general public? Is one type of power more dangerous than another? Are there examples we can draw from other areas of complex governance to help us develop a plan for governance of the Internet? And what would be the harm if there were no controlling parties at all?

Leading the conversation today will be our own Ryan Budish.

Readings

• The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in 'Multistakeholder as Governance Groups: Observations from Case Studies' (case study on p. 214-237)

• NETmundial, Wikipedia

• Explained: The IANA Transition

• Milton Mueller and Brenden Kuerbis, Roadmap for globalizing IANA: Four principles and a proposal for reform

• Jonathan Zittrain and L. Gordon Crovitz Debate the Future of Internet Governance

Optional Readings

• NETmundial Output Document and Principles

Class Discussion

Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: Andy 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)

Hey class, I just read this op-ed by David Brooks on his stance on cop-cams. Though he's ultimately for cop cams he makes an eloquent case for privacy and the harms that could come from arming police with cameras. I thought it was a nice compliment to our own discussions around online privacy. Take a look --> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/opinion/david-brooks-the-lost-language-of-privacy.html

Kelly.wilson (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

---