[governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship

[Danny Butt]

Thanks Milton, Linda and Jeanette for comments.

Milton, I could talk for a long time about the users and (more  
importantly for the developmental dimension) potential users who were  
*not* visible in the early days of Internet coordination. I think  
it's easier to just look at the gender/ethnic mix in the photographs  
from the after-parties. The fact that the exclusions were not  
formalised doesn't make them any less real. And these exclusions are,  
in my view, also what made the USG happy to have a body like ICANN in  
power. It's absolutely unthinkable that a similar body with powerful  
blocs from (say) predominantly Muslim nations would ever be given  
decision-making autonomy by the USG.

I think Jeanette's suggestion below reflects my own point of view.  
The onus is on self-governing bodies responsible for critical  
infrastructure to demonstrate inclusiveness and effectiveness to the  
level that intergovernmental mechanisms can demonstrate. By this I  
mean the bodies really need to gain at least the level of trust and  
legitimacy in the eyes of all, not just in the eyes of those  
currently doing well out of the status quo (including Euro-US  
dominated civil society). Until this can be shown in practice (not in  
theory), I cant see how ICANN is better than say the ITU.

(Please don't talk meetings being "open for anyone to attend" - we  
all want these intergovernmental bodies to be more open and  
accountable. But I think we need to start that critique with a  
recognition of the global legitimacy that intergovernmental bodies  
have been able to achieve much more effectively than ICANN or any of  
the other IG self-governing bodies. And realise that you can't get  
four billion people onto a discussion list or meeting room, so direct  
democracy won't get you there.)

Best

Danny

On 05/12/2006, at 7:59 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> I believe that any self governance mechanism must prove that it is  
> able to produce at least equally good results as an (inter-) 
> governmental regime. A crucial part of this "equally good" would be  
> reliable rules and appeals mechanisms. In order to gain the trust  
> and the legitimacy they need, private governance mechanisms need to  
> develop an equivalent to the rule of law. I am not sure ICANN takes  
> its own rules seriously enough to deserve the responsibility it has.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance