Abstract
The Magaziner Report focuses on achieving short-term goals without giving sufficient consideration to long-term consequences affecting the structure of Internet governance and democracy in general. This overly pragmatic approach creates a paradoxical climate: overly-friendly to government intervention (in e-commerce regulation) while also overlywilling to defer to privatized governance structures (in other areas). As the recent World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") domain name/trademark process demonstrates, certain Internet governance processes raise several questions, not least discerning whether such processes include adequate notice and consultation. More traditional democratic processes, such as legislation and regulation, have routinized means of giving affected parties notice of pending decisions and of soliciting public comment. Other privatized governance processes may be equally or more legitimate, but not inevitably.