[governance] Burr & Cade: proposalforintroducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Jul 29 05:50:49 EDT 2006
Lee
> Now, while we can now more clearly see what IGF cannot do, we (and
> everyone else so minded) can push the call for a next step, ie the
> framework convention.
It will be good to hear the group's view on this.
It is my opinion that IGC should take a two-track approach to IG. One
inside-out and, the other outside-in.
Inside-out (or incremental change) approach is about knowing that IG
establishment is today in a particular state and things take time, and show
inertia, to change, and while we attempt more structural change, we need to
also work on making the present systems work in a manner that serves our
purposes better. All our work on ICANN reform etc falls into this category,
and is important. But this should not - and I think this often happens here
- distract us from the need for more structural changes in IG and Internet
policy universe. How much ever the present ICANN reforms itself in making
its processes more transparent etc, it embedded-ness in a particular
political thinking isn't going to change through such incremental processes.
The outside-in (or structural change) approach develops the concepts and
contours of a more ideal IG system, that serves our collective interests
best, and advocates, for this purpose, to move toward a structural
arrangement for evolving such a system. For this, in my view, a global
convention framework kind of process, in its broadest meaning, is necessary.
But we are conscious, and insistent, that Internet and information society
itself changes global governance context sufficiently to require 'political
innovations'(and also make them more possible) which, inter alia, have more
space for non-state players.
There are many reasons why a proposal for a more formal international
Internet policy making process (naming it a framework convention process
doesn't exclude our insistence on the needed political innovations in this
process) should come from the civil society or IGC.
One, that governments tend mostly to operate on a fire-fighting mode, and
are not likely to easily sit down to develop forward looking ideas and
proposal.
Two, global civil society (which is much more developed today than a global
political system) has the mandate to develop progressive global political
principles, and seek their implementation. Again nation states are too
narrowly constructed to do this task on their own.
And three, taking up the early advocacy, and contributing expertise for
substantive proposal formulation, gives the CS a better chance of being
represented in the various processes, and outcomes.
Between how strongly we advocate the incremental change activity and
structural change activity, and what political mandate we come up with for
the Internet, lies the issue of inclusiveness of those who are excluded
today from the dominant paradigm of Internet and information society.
Speaking only about incremental changes and ignoring structural change
issues completely, (if I be allowed to state my political opinion without
meaning anything personal to anyone) is a political stance. And we as IGC
need to do that political stance fine-tuning.
> So maybe we better get our own caucus charter adopted before we propose
> a 'charter' for the world....
Yes, I agree, we can do our charter first, and later, as suggested by Bill
and others, work on more substantive principles that can guide our
activities.
Parminder
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 3:46 AM
> To: apeake at gmail.com; parminder at itforchange.net;
> governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller
> Subject: RE: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposalforintroducingmulti-lateral
> oversight of the root
>
> Hi Parminder,
>
> Jumping into pick up on your framework convention points, yes indeed
> several of us in IGP pushed hard on it for a while, didin;t get the
> traction we hoped for, and have since channged tactics but not taken
> back anything we said before.
>
> Speaking for myself, I still see something like that as necessary, but
> in policy agenda-setting as you know timing matters. A lot.
>
> So we helped spread the notion, got push back from usual suspect
> sources, and lately have been waiting for the dust to settle from some
> intermediary policy steps and process developments.
>
> Specifically, until it became clear(er) what the IGF can and cannot do,
> was hard to get people to focus beyond IGF which after all is critically
> important that its early establishment does not go for naught.
>
> Now, while we can now more clearly see what IGF cannot do, we (and
> everyone else so minded) can push the call for a next step, ie the
> framework convention.
>
> So maybe we better get our own caucus charter adopted before we propose
> a 'charter' for the world....at least that is my excuse! ; )
>
> Lee
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
> >>> parminder at itforchange.net 7/28/2006 9:56 AM >>>
> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060729/6f4a08d8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060729/6f4a08d8/attachment.txt>
More information about the Governance
mailing list