[governance] Four legs good, two legs bad

[Milton Mueller]

This whole debate about government is getting silly. 

IGP publications have proposed that ICANN be formally accountable to
the rule of law (law being governmental, last time I looked); and that
the world's governments negotiate a framework convention to codify in a
binding fashion certain principles regarding the Internet (principles
which, we hope, will preserve and protect its freedoms rather than
undermine them). 

So rather than getting caught in an Orwellian chant that governments
are two-legged and therefore intrinsically bad, to be answered by
equally uninteresting bleating that they are four-legged and therefore
intrinsically good, it might be better to talk about what you want the
governments to do, what you don't want them to do, what institutional
mechanisms might be deployed, and what checks and balances might exist
to counter the obvious tendency of states to wield power in ways that
benefit themselves or certain clients at the expense of the public
(especially in international arenas where there is no electorate, no
real rule of law, very little enforcability and very weak
accountability)

>>> db at dannybutt.net 12/7/2006 1:36:29 AM >>>
Hi Jeanette/all

I find it interesting that internet culture is so hostile to the idea 

of government that even mild recognition quickly becomes  
"glorification" :7. I have no great love for intergovernmental  
systems, but they do some things relatively well, or at least better  
than existing alternatives. Geographical diversity and due process  
would be high on my list.

While I think that "transparency" in the development sector is highly 

overrated (and often a tool to enable ICT-rich organisations to get  
contracts where "publishing on the internet" is equated with  
transparency), I agree it is an important component of  
accountability. However, it's far from the only component, or even  
the most important.

My point is that what constitutes "performance" will be assessed  
differently by different people, and there is a rather large  
geopolitical/socio-cultural imbalance in positive evaluations of  
existing Internet Governance entities. Civil Society's stand on that  
imbalance will, in my opinion, be critical to its long-term voice in  
IG arrangements.

Or to put it more simply, if CS buys the line that everything is fine 

as long as it gets seats at the table, then it may soon find itself  
in an expensive, empty restaurant with bad food and worse company,  
while the masses eat elsewhere.

Regards,

Danny


On 07/12/2006, at 7:53 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> 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.

____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
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