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

[Izumi AIZU]

Hi,

I am still not able to asess how much departure the new dot com agreement of
USG with VeriSign would bring to the current ICANN framework. (I need my
homework bit more, I mean).

Having been involved with ICANN mostly on AtLarge area for so many years
now, I could tell organizational shortcomings of the ICANN relatively
easily. Some of these are expressed in the recently agreed "self-review" of
ALAC:

http://icannwiki.org/ALAC:Self_Assessment_and_Next_Steps

I also like to add my recent observation about ITU, in their standard-making
process around NGN (Next Generation Network). It is very much done in a
traditional ITU way, in the working group, where most of the works are done
by the sector members, meaing private company or industry people who are
technical expert, with some government people also involved.

All the draft document, members of the group etc are not for the public,
thus it is hard to trace what is being discussed. Some of the so
called "technical" standards involves public policy issues, such as
security, identity management, which directly relate to privacy, but since
these are all kept behind, it is almost impossible for policy people
to provide any inputs or influence.

In that sense, yes, ICANN is much more open and transparent and, therefore
easier to track by us, civil society, about the
possible policy areas.


izumi

2006/12/7, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de>:
>
>
> > 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.
>
> On further reflection, we should not glorify intergovernmental processes
> and institutions. Even if the ITU is more inclusive as far as
> participation of governments is concerned, we don't know much about
> balances of powers between governments. And even if there are formal
> mechanisms of accountability, we don't know whether they are effective.
>
> ICANN is much more transparent than any intergovernmental organization.
> This is why we can observe its shortcomings on a regular basis. I
> wouldn't be able to say if closed intergovernmental organizations such
> as the ITU violate or stretch their own rules more or less than ICANN.
> What seems safe to say is trust in an organization requires better
> performance.
>
> jeanette






-- 
                      >> Izumi Aizu <<

             Institute for HyperNetwork Society
             Kumon Center, Tama University
                             * * * * *
              << Writing the Future of the History >>
                               www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061207/6c2c59d4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061207/6c2c59d4/attachment.txt>