[governance] FW: Political Oversight of ICANN

[Gurstein, Michael]

McTim and all,

A few comments...


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: November 6, 2005 1:12 PM
To: Parminder
Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] Political Oversight of ICANN

There is no faith needed, one just has to look at how well it has
worked. You would, however, need a leap of Faith to entrust oversight to
"multigovernmentalism".

I THINK THIS MAY BE VERY TIME/CULTURE/NATION SPECIFIC... SOME FOLKS ARE
RATHER MORE SKEPTICAL/CYNICAL THAN OTHERS ABOUT THE CAPACITY OF
GOVERNMENT/THEIR GOVERNMENT/THE COLLECTIVITY OF GOVERNMENTS AS
REPRESENTED BY THE UN TO REPRESENT THE BROAD INTERESTS OF ALL citizens. 

I'M A CANADIAN LIVING IN THE US, AND I CERTAINLY NOTE A VAST DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN MY ORIENTATION/EXPECTATIONS CONCERNING THE ROLE AND VALUE OF
GOVERNMENTS AND THOSE OF MY US COLLEAGUES (OF WHATEVER POLITICAL
ORIENTATION)... AND THAT I SHOULD SAY CARRIES OVER TO
EXPECTATIONS/ORIENTATION TOWARDS THE UN...
 	

> elaboration will require a theoretical analysis), except to say that 
> this is neither desirable nor practical.

I see it as both (desirable AND practical).  In addition, I think the
very rough consensus of the caucus is this "status quo minus" position.
I understand you are concerned that folk who haven't been involvd in the
IG Caucus aren't having their views heard.

I PERSONALLY HAVEN'T WORKED THROUGH WHETHER I PREFER A "PRIVATIZED"
APPROACH--I HAVE REAL PROBLEMS WITH THE LACK OF PUBLIC/SOCIAL
ACCOUNTABILITY THAT IS BUILT INTO THIS-- OR THE UN OVERSIGHT APPROACH
(WHERE THERE MAY BE TOO MUCH ACCOUNTABILITY BUT TO THE WRONG
FOLKS--CENSORS IN CHINA FOR EXAMPLE); OR THE STATUS QUO WHERE THERE IS
ACCOUNTABILITY BUT ULTIMATELY ONLY TO ONE SET OF POLITICAL ACTORS--THE
USG. 

WHAT I DON'T SEE THOUGH, AND THIS WORRIES ME, IS ANY DIRECT LINE OF
ACCOUNTABILITY FROM CIVIL SOCIETY AS IT IS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED EITHER
HERE OR IN ICANN BACK TO THE GRASSROOTS/COMMUNITY FOLKS THAT I WORK
WITH... AND I DO SEE SOME, THOUGH OFTEN TANGLED/FRAYED/BROKEN LINES OF
ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE GRASSROOTS THROUGH TO GOVERNMENTS AND THROUGH
GOVERNMENTS TO THE UN... 

BUT I GUESS I'M WONDERING ABOUT PROCESS HERE... I COUNT 5 EXPRESSED
VOICES WITH VARYING DEGREES OF SKEPTICISM CONCERNING THE POSITION BEING
PRESENTED AS THAT REPRESENTING CS, WITH NOT VERY MUCH MORE SUPPORTING
THIS POSITION AND YET "WE" SEEM TO HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED THE ICANN
APPROACH AS THE "ROUGH CONSENSUS" OR HAVE I BEEN MISSING SOMETHING...


If they want their views heard, they can join the list and speak up. 
If I want my voice heard in the Gender Caucus, I would join that list
and speak up!!

HMMM, FOLKS CAN SPEAK BUT IF THEY AREN'T HEARD...


> The obvious issues of representative-ness,
> legitimacy etc stare in our face.

Yes, they do.  What is more representative and legitimate in your eyes:

1.  Being able to directly participate on an equal plane with
governments, PS, and other CS entities/individuals in a truly
multistakeholder IG mechanism

or

2. Being a spectator on the sidelines of a UN anchored (ITU/UNESCO)
mechanism.

OR ACTING AS CITIZENS THROUGH DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES OF REPRESENTATION AND
ACCOUNTABILITY...

OR...WE COULD PROBABLY GENERATE A HALF DOZEN OTHER ALTERNATIVES HERE...
THE QUESTION IS NOT THE SPECIFICS OF THE OUTCOME (MEANS JUSTIFYING ENDS)
BUT RATHER HAVING A TRANSPARENT AND LEGITIMATE PROCESS...

 
<snip>

> I know that existing UN bodies may not be appropriate to take up IG 
> functions, but it is also obvious that for global legitimacy the IG 
> oversight MUST anchor in the UN.

It's a network of networks. IMO the only legitimate "narrow oversight"
can come from network operators and users of those networks.

WITH ACCOUNTABILITY TO WHOM?

>
>
> IG is an important issue at Tunis, and CS needs to take clear, 
> principled and yet workable positions on this. Every option including 
> the status quo has its problems. For too long different fears have 
> paralysed us into inaction - but 'politics is the art of the possible'

> and we need to clearly choose what we will like the Summit to do on 
> this matter.

I'm afraid that what you want is not "possible" given the US position.


> This concept of 'internet
> community' as consisting of actual Internet users itself is 
> problematic. It may have been valid in the nineties. But today 
> Internet impacts everyone, and the entire world's population has a 
> great stake in the Internet. )

And they are welcome to participate in it's governance as individuals.
They won't, by and large, but that decision is up to them.

)???) THIS ONE IS WAY TOO LONG TO DISCUSS 

MG


--
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice there is" Yogi Berra

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance