[governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

[Parminder]

Milton wrote:

>Governments can pursue a
> framework convention and establish principles and norms for broader
> internet gov, which would by definition include ICANN at a very high
> level.

>likewise. the process of formulating broad policy
> principles for the Internet - thebroad oversight - would be crippled if
> it gets bogged down in the details of technical coordination

 >Governments as a collectivity have to define what principles and norms
> they want to enforce on the Internet, in general terms, before they can
> be allowed to get anywhere near the detailed mechanisms of identifier
> governance.

>So I think it is quite consistent and reasonable to say to the
> world's nation-states: you don't get any more power over ICANN and its
> activities until you figure out what you really want for the Internert
> as a whole.

Thanks Milton. With your above explanations here - i agree with you 
completely. 

Now since we are at a world summit where all governments are present and will 
adopt commitments, we need to tell them what we expect them to do (which is no 
less important than what we expect around ICANN functions) -- they should 
figure out the 'priciples and norms' and also ' what really you want from the 
Internet'-  which is much more than telling governemnts - just stay away from 
internet- which many here are intent on saying. and the big difference is 
between these two positions. 

And summits take place not to take care only of the 'now and here' but to lay 
the path for many years to come. Summits dont happen everyday - so we need to 
tell the governements to get their act together. and asking for establishing a 
convention process is the way to do it. 

parminder

  

www.ITforChange.net
IT for Change
Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities


Quoting Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:

> Just had time to catch up with this. 
> 
> >>> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 11/9/2005 11:01:09 AM >>>
> >The new paper by Milton and others concludes that a 
> >reformed ICANN be left without political oversight - which is 
> >unacceptable -  and also quite at variance with earlier outputs 
> >form the IG project. 
> 
> Not inconsistent at all. The point of separating "narrow" and "broad"
> oversight is precisely to solve this problem. Governments can pursue a
> framework convention and establish principles and norms for broader
> internet gov, which would by definition include ICANN at a very high
> level. But there is no reason to inject governmental political oversight
> directly into the process of Internet identifier resource allocation and
> assignment. That is too close to the "day to day operation" that
> governments themselves agree they shouldn't be involved in. 
> 
> >The recent paper by Milton speaks of narrower oversight and 
> >broader oversight - and promises to deal with the broader 
> >oversight issue later. There is a big problem here. The narrow and 
> >broader oversight areas are horizontal divisions, and not vertical 
> >components, and therefore can not be considered separately 
> >form one another.
> 
> Here is where we disagree. Narrow and broad oversight MUST be separated
> and dealt with separately, otherwise you mess up both terribly.
> Injecting highly political concerns into the techno-economic processes
> of root server management, number allocation, TLD creation, etc. would
> be a disaster. Likewise, the process of formulating broad policy
> principles for the Internet - thebroad oversight - would be crippled if
> it gets bogged down in the details of technical coordination. 
> 
> > The interface between the two is the whole issue - 
> >and if the narrow oversight is not defined in a manner that it
> >has a workable interface with the broader oversight - than there 
> >is no point in determining the mechanisms of broader oversight 
> >later. How will the broader oversight then be enforced on the 
> >realm of the narrow oversight.
> 
> Governments as a collectivity have to define what principles and norms
> they want to enforce on the Internet, in general terms, before they can
> be allowed to get anywhere near the detailed mechanisms of identifier
> governance. They have not yet done so. They may not ever be able to do
> so. But if you tell them, hey you can veto TLD selections, grab address
> resources, fiddle with language standards, etc., etc., they will do so
> opportunistically and in the short term, playing out little political
> games. So I think it is quite consistent and reasonable to say to the
> world's nation-states: you don't get any more power over ICANN and its
> activities until you figure out what you really want for the Internert
> as a whole. And yes, that applies to the USG, more than any other. 
> 
> 
> 
>  I
> have found the attempt to separate the two - in this manner - always
> problematic. An analytical separation soon becomes a political
> separation. 
> 
> Can we instead try to build a consensus around IG project's response to
> WGIG
> report. (Internet Governance Quo Vadis? A Response to the WGIG
> Report)(http://www.internetgovernance.org/) 
> 
> Parminder
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:41 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to
> 
> We seem to be struggling with "oversight" at the moment.
> 
> I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet 
> Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about 
> ICANN.  Personally, I think it's an excellent paper.
> 
> This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working 
> definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about 
> ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy 
> supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers."
> 
> I would be interested to hear opinions on this.
> 
> Can you support this paper?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> At 11:47 AM -0500 11/1/05, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >=================
> >Political Oversight of ICANN
> >=================
> >
> >The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the
> >controversies around "oversight" of ICANN.
> >
> >  http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf 
> >
> >We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in
> >setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the
> narrower
> >problem of ICANN's oversight.
> >
> >An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to
> >supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight
> can
> >be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids
> >threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet.
> >
> >The paper can be downloaded here:
> >http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf 
> >
> >www.internetgovernance.org 
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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