<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>As a quick response (on the road, must run
out the door soon), I think we are using the term “private sector”
in very different ways. To me it just means “civil society” in the
more general sense that the term has been used in political theory, which
includes the voluntary, agreement-based non-governmental parts of society. This
includes both business and what we on this list consider to be noncommercial
civil society. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>As for the term “Internet community,”
yes, I understand the ways that term has been misused, having critcizied it
extensively myself. But I hate to concede the term, because it expresses the
way Internet (and many other forms of ICT governance) blurs the line between
producer and consumer of information and communication products and services. As
a network technology the Internet creates its own public, its own community,
its own polity. That is what I mean.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>--MM<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
color=black face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 color=black face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:windowtext;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font
size=2 color=black face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
color:windowtext'> Parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Sunday, April 05, 2009 7:03
AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">governance@lists.cpsr.org</st1:PersonName>;
<st1:PersonName w:st="on">Milton L Mueller</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [governance] Proposed
text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:</span></font><font color=black><span
style='color:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on"><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Milton</span></font></st1:place></st1:City><br>
<br>
<font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial;color:blue'>>Political sovereignty for the Internet community is
precisely what we seek. It should, of course, be one in which the new
global institution(s) are accountable to a broad >segment of Internet
society. But this is the fundamental underlying drama of ICANN and its status
vis a vis <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
government and other states.<br>
<br>
</span></font>I do not understand the meaning of 'internet community' in this
context and therefore cannot appreciate what you mean by political sovereignty
for it. For us, all people of the world have legitimate and equal political
interest in all key Internet matters. Can you please explain why would you not
just say 'global community' instead. Any particular reason? Especially when we
both agreed that we are speaking here of not some narrow technical policy
issues, but important political matters, for instance FoE and 'access to
knowledge'. <br>
<br>
The political use of the term 'internet community', in the manner I have seen
it mostly used now-a-days, has become one part of a dangerous attempt to create
an artificially new global reality, with a new basis for
constructing its constituents, *for the purpose of engineering* some radical
global political redetermination that fly in the face of long revered precepts
of democracy, public interest, representation, social justice and equity. In
such attempts at global political redetermination lie the principle congruity
of neoliberal and the dominant information society discourses.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>>Seems we have a choice of three
models. 1) Work in the general framework of private sector, civil society based
governance; 2) take an ITU/WIPO, >pure-intergovernmental approach; 3) take
what might be called a competing hegemon approach, in which US contends with
EU, China, Russia, Brazil and India for >dominance, and use IGOs (and
ICANN) as tools when convenient and act unilaterally when not. The latter two
options are state-directed but the third relies more on great >power
deals than established institutional frameworks. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>>I'll take 1).<br>
<br>
</span></font>We are strongly opposed to any private (meaning business, using
standard UN terminology) sector leadership for any global governance model. I
made this clear in my previous email. We see important CS role in new global
governance models, but there is lot to be done and learnt in this area, and it
is really not easy to structure CS participation in any body with strong
policy roles. As mentioned in my email, we very much encourage and participate
in any innovations in this area (ex, IGF). In fact, WGIG did propose
alternative global Internet policy institutional frameworks (see its
models 1, 3 and 4), which were worth a try, and certainly
worth full CS support. Unfortunately, much of the CS in the IG arena did
not support these alternatives and struck to supporting existing ICANNist
model. That was our best chance, and it is still our best chance. We need to
work towards real internationalization of the IG system, with innovative models
that have high civil society representation. Significantly, more we delay in
supporting and pushing for such new possibilities, the global environment for
acceptability of anything other than a simple UN kind inter-governmental model
may only keep becoming worse. <br>
<br>
To sum our position, we prefer to work with democratically representative
bodies, using CS presence for 'deepening democracy' at the global level, rather
than acquiesce to corporate leadership of global governance. (<st1:City w:st="on">Milton</st1:City>,
since I understand you wont want corporates to have leading political role with
regard to domestic issue inside the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region>, why have different standards
and definitions of democracy for your country and for the outside?) <br>
<br>
We do realize that many governments are not themselves democratic
representatives of the people of their countries, and in this context we
should work hard for strengthening the democratization of national as well as
global governance. The ruse of poor governance for privatizing governance
has been used for too long by some global forces vis-a-vs developing
countries for us not to understand this ploy rather well. It has been one of
the main planks of the '<st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Washington</st1:place></st1:State>
consensus' policies. Interestingly <st1:country-region w:st="on">UK</st1:country-region>'s
Prime Minister declared at the recent G 20 London summit that the '<st1:State
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Washington</st1:place></st1:State> consensus was
over'. Lets use this opportunity to move beyond its (more rabid) sister
'Californian consensus' (the ICANN+ model) towards some real globally
democratic arrangements, rather than wait for a crisis, as the London Summit
did. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<st1:PersonName w:st="on">Milton L Mueller</st1:PersonName> wrote: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Parminder:</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Thanks very much for
this long-overdue but welcome and well-considered explanation. We have
indeed felt exasperated at times by the lack of engagement by IGC/IGF civil
society. It has always seemed to me that ICANN repeatedly raises political
issues and struggles that, in the IGF context, attract a great deal of activity
but have very little impact relative to the ICANN venue. And while it
wasn't hard to surmise that some of the logic you developed below underlay the
hesitation to get involved, it is better to have an open dialogue about this.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>A few specific responses and
questions below: </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Either ICANN, and its GNSO, is merely doing
'relatively' mundane, though often important, administrative tasks in managing
some critical Internet resources, meaning tasks that do not have much political
implication, or ICANN indeed does tasks with significant political
implications. </span></font><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>It is the latter, obviously. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>However, in case ICANN/ GNSO does work with important
political implications we simply do not agree with much of its constitutive
logic - for instance, of equality/balance between demand and supply side of the
'domain name' marketplace, or even between other commercial and non-commercial
parties. We also do not agree to its basic criterion for legitimate interest/
representation that requires one to at least be a domain registrant. We do not
think that is the point - for instance even in the KTCN campaign of NCUC on the
FoE issue.</span></font><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>For those who are weak on the
acronyms, KTCN = keep the core neutral, FoE = freedom of expression. I do
not see how the KTCN campaign had anything to do with whether one was a domain
registrant or not, but perhaps I miss your point.</span></font> <br>
<br>
Such 'user' based and stakeholder based global governance systems
disproportionately favoring organized private sector (US-ians may read,
business sector) - to counter whose power is a central governance issue at the
global level - are exactly the wrong models of global governance to promote.
Such models are poised to overall do much greater damage than good to the
global public interest. They are especially dangerous when they seek political
sovereignty, which we are afraid much of these minor structural adjustments are
aimed at consolidating. To the extent that there is a certain complicity in
the ICANN arena in this regard - including of some of the involved civil
society actors - we must strongly disassociate ourselves from supporting any
such implications of the present, or any other, proposal for structural changes
in the ICANN.<font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:blue'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Political sovereignty for the Internet
community is precisely what we seek. It should, of course, be one in which
the new global institution(s) are accountable to a broad segment of
Internet society. But this is the fundamental underlying drama of ICANN and its
status vis a vis <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
government and other states.</span></font><br>
<br>
On the other hand, we can understand and accept user/ stakeholder models for
relatively low-level technical policy tasks, which are politically accountable
to globally legitimate entities (sorry, but US government is not). <font
size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:blue'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Who is? </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Seems we have a choice of three models. 1)
Work in the general framework of private sector, civil society based
governance; 2) take an ITU/WIPO, pure-intergovernmental approach; 3) take what
might be called a competing hegemon approach, in which US contends with EU,
China, Russia, Brazil and India for dominance, and use IGOs (and ICANN) as
tools when convenient and act unilaterally when not. The latter two
options are state-directed but the third relies more on great power deals
than established institutional frameworks. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>I'll take 1).</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>All such governance innovations -
out-of-the-box, subversive, whatever - that look like they are especially
pushing forward marginalized interests attract our strong interest. All
'innovations' that further entrench dominant interests -whether economic,
political, geo-political, class - are correspondingly received with
strong political opposition. </span></font><font size=2 color=blue
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Understand this well. If you want to know
why IGP verges on the status of "radioactive" within ICANN/US/DoC
circles it's because of this. But I suspect our concept of what kind of
policies best overcome marginalization may differ. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Setting that aside, I see based on your
final comments below that you at least partly realize why the NCSG charter should
be supported in this case. To spell it out more clearly, the reason NCSG is
being targeted by ICANN staff as something to be fragmented and manipulated is
precisely because NCUC has been completely independent of staff control
and dominance (unlike ALAC and the RALOs) and because the policies it has
advocated have seemed "oppositional" and challenging to some of those
"dominant interests."</span></font><br>
<br>
We will like to see the NCSG 6.0 charter developed by the NCUC adopted by the
ICANN instead of the alternative one, and especially agree that its direct
instead of constituency based election of council members is a much
better process. It is better because it has a higher chance of representing
global public interest, each candidate having to muster a much wider support. <font
size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:blue'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Thanks! When it comes to the bottom line,
I am happy to see that you "get it."</span></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<O:P></O:P></div>
</body>
</html>