<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Book Antiqua">thanks Lee<br>
<br>
While I agree with your point that the distinctions amongst the groups
is itself dynamic, the Red Cross analogy seems a bit too stretched. <br>
<br>
Performing relief services is not a governance function by itself,
since Red Cross has no authority to perform its services. (In contrast
ICANN has the authority to approve gtlds etc). Also a voluntary tax is
an oxymoron.<br>
<br>
In my mail too, I have mentioned that we are moving towards new worlds
where the distinctions between the governed and those governing will
blur/become more complex (that the IGF itself a process in that
direction). But there is no ambiguity in my mind about ICANN not being
CS at this point in time for the reasons I have mentioned. <br>
<br>
Also I think global governance issues are very complex, I am not quite
sure if the movement we want is of ICANN to become CS, or for IABs to
develop (better) accountability structures as governing institutions to
those they govern (meaning keeping the distinction between the governed
and governing transparent), rather than compromise on these under the
ambivalence of becoming 'participatory' etc etc. <br>
<br>
regards,<br>
Guru<br>
</font><br>
Lee McKnight wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:s83b2638.025@gwia203.syr.edu" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Guru,
Not to get too pedantic (probably hard to do on this list) but poli sci
theory includes large literatures on 'voluntary associations' and
interest group politics, who do govern themselves, and in the case of eg
standards organizations, can make decisions that have wide effects on
industry, government and society. We could get into corporatist and
neocorporatist theory here too, but ok now I am getting too pedantic.
In sum, there may be global Internet governance institutions that are
closer, in both philosophy and objective, to civil society, and others
further removed. I for one would be delighted if ICANN, ISOC and IETF
etc were to wish to identify more closely with civil society, and see no
case in the literature for excluding them a priori. For example the
International Red Cross - performs (governs) critical emergency
functions, is organized as an international organization, is closer or
further removed from the government in specific nations - but we would
not exclude the Red Cross in spite of its 'voluntary tax' in times of
emergency powers - from civil society. Right?
Lee
Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:guru@itforchange.net">guru@itforchange.net</a> 05/26/08 10:06 AM >>>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
____________
Gurumurthy K
IT for Change,Bangalore | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ITforChange.net">www.ITforChange.net</a>
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities</pre>
</body>
</html>