[governance] Burr & Cade: proposal forintroducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root

[Parminder]

Milton

Personal things first. 

>  Unless you support the exercise of
> political authority for its own sake (which I sometimes think you do)

Well, I have some things to say about what I think you do, but lets agree to
spare this space from such an exchange. 

Now to the issue:

>  A humane and just global policy toward name and number resources will
> not come about by one -- or 180 -- government(s) grabbing onto to a
> centralized chokepoint and fighting over how to exploit its leverage.

You have been a great campaigner against rhetoric on this list, so why use
it yourself when this is just not the issue being discussed. 

I did not say how the policy will come, I said all political authority -
legitimate or not - needs some strong levers of power, even if as a reserve
power of last resort, to be meaningful. This is a simple statement of fact.
Do you, with your knowledge of public affairs, think this is untrue?

US knows quite well how to assert its political interests, and it thinks RTZ
control is one key. And any other political authority (hopefully more
legitimate) will seek its levers of assertion. 

And I also said in my email that I do not insist that this control is the
only way to exercise political oversight. And that RTZ control is one of
many ways by which authority has been exercised over ICANN. 

> OTOH, if govts cant agree on global policies, let them get the hell out
> of the process. IGP was for a long time advocating a framework
> convention as a starting point precisely for this reason.

Yes, herein lies the main issue. I have been supporting IGP's effort till
you were advocating a framework convention (In fact my organization prepared
a submission for gender caucus on basis of IGP's framework convention
proposal). But why are you NOT advocating it now? What changed meanwhile?
I'd be very interested to know. 

>From a very political stance on IG, why has IGP's stance gone apolitical.
ICANN should be rid from US control, and then it shd hang in the air?? Doing
some kind of self political control....

Political power is always being exercised whether we formalize it or not.
And you are an academician and you know it well. If US control goes away,
whatever it means, does political power in internet governance disappears.
It still resides with powerful dominant interests. 

If you have given up advocacy for a framework convention or some other
significant political innovation beyond the present structures then you may
be fine with the present political controls. I am very much not so....

That is the difference between your politics and mine, you may think
Internet is fine in hands of its present political masters (minus the more
visible controls by the US gov), I think Internet needs a very different
political mandate and thereby a different political oversight/control. 

The 'politics of the apolitical' is an interesting issue. In India the
middle classes have a great aversion to politics. They think it is the root
of all evil in India. And they never cease attempts to disguise political
issues as apolitical. The basic issue is simple, existing structures work
for them, and those who are excluded press for greater structural changes,
and this is dangerous to their entrenched positions. 

>Whose political authority? This is the other huge gap in your thinking.

US gov and some private interests at present, and whoever is able to get it
or a part of it, later on.  About gaps in thinking, please refer to para 1
above. 

> Who has legitimate political power over public policy issues related to
> the Internet?

A difficult question, but it is there and cant be brushed aside. Because
someone is meanwhile exercising illegitimate power. And the status quo is
more problematic to some than to others.


Parminder 

_______________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 3:46 AM
> To: apeake at gmail.com; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal forintroducingmulti-
> lateral oversight of the root
> 
> 
> >>> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 7/26/2006 6:01 AM >>>
> >> Let's create a sharp distinction between the two.
> 
> >On the contrary, my opinion is that the sharp connection
> >between the two is obvious.
> >For example, is it at all difficult to see why US refuses to
> relinquish
> >control over RZF?
> 
>  A humane and just global policy toward name and number resources will
> not come about by one -- or 180 -- government(s) grabbing onto to a
> centralized chokepoint and fighting over how to exploit its leverage.
> It will come when those govts -- and the public -- agree on what the
> proper global policies are. Giving govts the power to mess with a
> technical function like the RZF without _first_ coming to an agreement
> on what policies will be applied to the Internet is dangerous and wrong.
> 
> 
> >It is so obvious that if the issue was only technical it wont be
> >difficult to reach an arrangement for supervisor of RTZ under a team
> of
> >international experts or some other expertise based arrangement.
> Everyone
> >knows that behind the control of RTZ is hidden the issue of wider
> political
> >control over the Internet. And RTZ control is one way to exercise
> such
> >political control over Internet. US government has other controls as
> well
> >through its legal relationship with some IG related bodies.
> 
> Thanks for repeating to me things I've been writing for 5 years.
> 
> My objections to internationalizing the US's arbitrary power over RZF
> modifications comes to this: Attempting to set policy by hanging on to
> the ability to manipulate a file that ensures global interoperability is
> not a good thiing. It is a dysfunctional, unhealthy and unconstructive
> way to insert legitimate political interests into the process.
> 
> Why should governments hide and distort their political objectives
> under the cover of technically managing the RZF? How can they be given
> power over such a critical resource when they have no idea what they
> want to use it for? If governments can agree on globally applicable
> public policies, let them do so. And let them enforce those public
> policies on ICANN through more direct and legitimate means, such as
> fines for misconduct, taking away the contract, or stronger penalties
> for criminal breaches. Leave modification of the RZF to IANA.
> 
> OTOH, if govts cant agree on global policies, let them get the hell out
> of the process. IGP was for a long time advocating a framework
> convention as a starting point precsiely for this reason.
> 
> >I have heard a lot about how ICANN should be obligated to observe
> >international law, should stick to all new and old international
> treaties
> >etc, but not much on how this can be ensured. Shall it be left to
> ICANN's
> >interpretation and its goodwill?
> 
> No, of course not. But does controlling the RZF prevent ICANN from
> violating human rights, stealing, violating its own processes,
> corruption, etc.? Please explain how.
> 
> >Every higher political power exercises its political
> >authority through reserving some powers of last resort. [snip]
> 
> But the RZF is the wrong target. Unless you support the exercise of
> political authority for its own sake (which I sometimes think you do) I
> don't see the point. It seems to me that what you really want is the
> ability to take the IANA contract away from ICANN and give it to someone
> else -- not the ability to review and approve technical modifications of
> the RZF. Letting other govts share in the arbitrary, imperious US
> oversight actually distacts attention from the real issues.
> 
> >It is more important to have
> >these powers in reserve, than use them often. Control over RTZ is seen
> as
> >one of such powers that enable exercise of political authority.
> 
> Whose political authority? This is the other huge gap in your thinking.
> 
> 
> >Whoever has legitimate political power over public policy issues
> related to Internet
> >can only enforce it by having some powers of last resort over the
> actual running
> >of the infrastructure.
> 
> Who has legitimate political power over public policy issues related to
> the Internet?
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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