[governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

Wed Nov 9 11:51:59 EST 2005

>> My recommended solution would be:
- restore ICANN elections but treat them as provisory (the mechanisms still 
need work!)>>>

I have no faith in ICANN elections to gain representation to be able to
claim legitimacy - it may serve limited purpose of broadening the
accountability processes. But still be will be too biased to certain regions
and certain sections of the society. 

I have said it earlier - Internet governance needs representation of all -
those on the net today, and those who are not. So, in this case, ICANN
election system needs to reach the whole population of the world. Is it
possible - may be someday, because IS changes take place fast. There will be
new possibilities to solve problems of global representative-ness in the
future - but it will not only require socio-technical growths but evolution
of socio-political systems. We need to aim for it - but it is still far
away. 

Meanwhile much can be lost through a privatized governance representing
certain interests and excluding others - who need greater support. 

>>- maintain some governmental oversight, perhaps just unilateral>>

US unilateral control of course is completely unacceptable. 

Parminder 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Hans Klein
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 9:01 PM
To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

I offer here a conceptual distinction that may clarify the idea of 
"political oversight."
ICANN need political oversight by *representative* institutions.  But at 
the global level that is problematic. The only two candidates are 
governments and global elections.

Explanation:

ICANN exercises public powers: it makes rules for firms and for 
individuals.  It is a regulator.

As a regulator, it needs political oversight.  ICANN's exercise of public 
power must be legitimate.

But here is the problem: there are few or no political institutions at the 
global level that are legitimate.

The core principle of legitimacy is representation.  Political institutions 
are led by elected officials.  They can exercise public power because they 
are accountable to the public.

At the global level there are no representative institutions.  No body 
holds global elections.  Hence, we have no good institutions for political 
oversight.

Governments are not very legitimate, because 1) they each represent only a 
part of the globe, and 2) the connection between bureaucrats and the people 
they represent is too distant.  Many are not representative at all (they 
have no elections.)

With all due respect, civil society also does not have the legitimacy to 
exercise public power.  It is not elected.  Rather it possesses expertise, 
and it advocates on the basis of principle.  It has a lot to offer to the 
policy formulation process, but it cannot perform political oversight.

Likewise, business lacks political legitimacy. It is not a representative 
institution.

So what do we do?  We need political oversight, but we don't have 
institutions that can do it.

One solution is to create new political institutions.  That is what ICANN 
originally attempted.

In 2000 ICANN held global elections.  The elected directors could claim to 
represent the public that they regulate.  That promised to render ICANN 
legitimate. So ICANN's exercise of public powers was matched by political 
oversight by the global user community.

(Whether ICANN's elections "worked" is debatable.  But in principle, they 
solved the problem of political oversight.)

WSIS really only has has only two choices for political oversight:
- governmental oversight (of which unilateral US oversight is one, but not 
very attractive, option)
- new institutions (e.g. ICANN elections.)

My recommended solution would be:
- restore ICANN elections but treat them as provisory (the mechanisms still 
need work!)
- maintain some governmental oversight, perhaps just unilateral

Hans Klein

At 06:16 AM 11/9/2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>Hello,
>
>taking up Adam's suggestion from another thread, I think we need to
>agree on what we agree or disagree upon, so that our coordinators know
>what can or cannot be said in the name of the Caucus.
>
>This is my personal attempt at that. I've sincerely tried to be fair.
>
>I would hope that, perhaps, some non-agreements might be turned into
>agreements, if we discover that I've been too conservative in
>interpreting people's opinions. On the other hand, if you disagree on
>something given for agreed, please point that out.
>
>
>* OVERSIGHT
>
>-- GENERAL OVERSIGHT
>
>1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in
>multistakeholder settings.
>
>2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a
>governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles".
>
>
>-- DNS OVERSIGHT
>
>3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be
>governmental oversight over ICANN.
>
>4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the
>present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo.
>
>5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be
>"anchored" to the United Nations.
>
>6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over the
>DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where
>governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable.
>
>7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in
>the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable.
>
>8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved
>below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations".
>
>9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil
>society (including individual users, the academic community, the free
>software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy
>making structures.
>
>10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN,
>provided that we don't get too much into detail.
>
>11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the
>government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided that we
>don't discuss the form.
>
>12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable,
>transparent and democratic.
>
>
>* FORUM
>
>13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing.
>
>14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be
>"anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan,
>as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it
>happen.
>
>15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it on an
>equal basis.
>
>16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent,
>accountable and democratic.
>
>17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue".
>
>18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact
>that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there is no
>duplication of work.
>
>19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion and
>for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals.
>
>20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding
>documents.
>
>21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an
>"executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it
>should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis.
>
>22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be taken as
>a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms should
>be used extensively to allow remote participation.
>
>23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan
>to drive its creation.
>
>24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of
>stakeholder representatives should be created as well.
>
>25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before the end
>of 2006.
>--
>vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
>http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
>
>_______________________________________________
>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

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