[governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position

Mon Nov 7 05:53:53 EST 2005

Dear all, 

I have serious issues with the proposed text on oversight functions.

I think a lot of discussion is taking place on minor issues, without clearly
developing positions on the main issue. And I list them as following. If we
have some agreement on these, it is worthwhile to discuss greater details of
this text. It may be that some others are proceeding with some implied
understanding and consensus on these issues, if so, I request those premises
be stated upfront.

1.	Does IG imply important public policy functions at all or not?  I
understand that it is accepted, in principle, that it does. 
2.	What are legitimate public policy making  or political  bodies
that can be considered for political oversight of Internet 
3.	Can ICANN itself be considered such a public policy making  and
therefore political  body. 

The draft text seems to be informed by a thinking which will reply yes to
point 3. The position that is being proposed is that the public policy
functions now with the US government be taken from it, and then ICANN
becomes the global public policy making body for all functions of IG without
any external political oversight. (I cannot consider administrative
arrangements of appeals etc as political oversight mechanisms)

This is completely unacceptable, and flies in the face of earlier agreed
WSIS docs (Geneva phase) as well as the WGIG report. Both of these clearly
mentioned that public policy is a governmental function. (I wonder what do
the WGIG members in the IG caucus have to say to this  though not at all
meaning that WGIG report can be considered a consensus report). Why such
basic issues are being completely bypassed  and even a discussion on these
not taking place? 

And why are there opening lines like the time has come for a change in the
political oversight of the Internet mentioned ( 64 C of the proposed text)
and then we find that the text does not deal with any political oversight at
all. All it speaks of is exhortation to ICANN to develop proper policy
development processes. Where is the political element in this?

Why are we confusing basic management, governance and political issues? If
the drafters do not believe in political oversight  let them say it so
clearly, rather than put administrative processes in the paras which carry
the heading political oversight.  (There is no intent to be aggressive
here.. in my opinion, the basic point is in this distinction.)

There seems to be some romanticism in some parts of the CS that real global
governance decisions should actually be taken by bodies where civil society
representatives sit as voting members. This is absurd. CS has to have
greater and greater interfaces with global (and national) governance systems
in a way that it can advise, input proposals, extract accountablity etc, but
to think that we should actually take up decision making responsibilities is
politically naïve, and raises questions about our legitimacy. 

It seems that as CS, there is an agreed implication that we should always be
pushing for more and more powers for the CS. I clearly disassociate from
this view. Such a view in fact is very dangerous  and it is often because
of such views that CS finds opposition even to its due place in the roles
that are appropriate for it. I mean, are there any core governance functions
in any democracy, however imperfect it may be, that any of us will want our
governments to get off from, and have some CS representatives take up
those roles  and replace democratic processes by processes of nomination?
Who would these representatives be  you and me, on this list ?? That
would be some oligarchy in the making

I shouldnt be discussing these simple issues  but the oversight positions
in this draft are so politically untenable, that I need to. 

So, please lets get real, and ask for political oversight to go from US to
an appropriate inter-governmental system,  and that this be a new body
since IG functions are in many way unique etc

.. (we can work to develop
the language here)  and it should have appropriate etc (
.you can put
conditions here) role of CS and interface with CS 

.

And once this is accepted, everything that is written in the proposed draft
about internal reforms in ICANN is very valid  I am solidly behind all the
language in there. 

But what the present draft does is to conflate political oversight functions
with resource allocation management and technical functions, in a very
dangerous way (and with this also completely defeats the crux of the WGIG
report). (Will the drafters of the present text also state upfront that the
present text is in complete disagreement with almost the whole of WGIG
report on this issue?) and after conflation of all IG functions, it hands
over all these functions and powers to the ICANN. Thats all that the draft
position essentially does. 

I cannot accept the present draft to go as the position of the IG caucus. It
represents too un-representative a view.  Those who agree on it should
submit the position in individual names. (I apologise for such aggression
once again  but advocacy often calls forth such qualities) 

And there are many other political issues with the draft, that can be
brushed aside as minor one. I give one example
.

As spoken of in my earlier mails the references of accountability to global
internet user community (as spoken of in the daft text) is not sufficient,
the world community, every single person, is affected by the Internet,
positively or negatively, and those on the wrong side of the digital divide
are as much the stakeholders in IG as those with 24 hour connectivity. 

Parminder 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051107/72e4d7c5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance