[governance] .xxx. igc and igf

Mon Apr 9 10:31:41 EDT 2007

HI Parminder

I agree that ICANN hasn’t had space in the past for CS groups from other
parts of the world, but the model for participation is now being
implemented, and it would be cool if people checked out the RALOs that are
now forming. Quite a few groups from the Caribbean have joined in within the
last few months,  and we are now seeing how it works out. Let’s see if they
work as a space for CS within ICANN. If not – there’s a review upcoming and
space for change. I think that it’s important to participate in all the
spaces, not leave out one or the other because it isn’t a friendly space –
it’s to join and force  the space  to be more friendly and make the other
groups listen to our concerns.

Jacqueline

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 3:48 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf

Hi 

I have been trying to take some lessons from the very interesting .xxx
debate on this list for the advocacy work that IGC could/needs to do…. This
is in keeping with the dual nature of IGC’s mandate – being a discussion
(and ideas development) space as well as doing advocacy work. And in the
process I will also add some of my views on the subject. 

So, both Milton and Adam are right, in parts.  .xxx discussion has been very
useful and is important, and that we also need to think about what IGC wants
to do about it. And a forum presenting itself for us to do something is the
IGF consultations….  I have combined the threads on .xxx discussion and on
going forward vis a vis IGC at IGF, and changed the subject line. It also
makes for a very long email for which I apologize. 

.xxx issue is seen as the proxy for the broader issue of global IG public
policy. There have been two main positions in this discussion (though the
discussion in fact has been very nuanced and rich, and this two way typology
is merely a convenient way to try to move towards some actionable items). 

ICANN shouldn’t do content management since it is public policy issue. But
then who should ??? 

One side can be represented by Robin/ Milton’s views that .xxx is a public
policy issue and ICANN should not have got into public policy arena, and
should have stuck to its purely technical mandate. If we were to accept
this, the major issue confronting us is – who does the public policy in this
arena. To quote Milton….

>ICANN's control of the root, we believe, should not be used to exert policy
leverage over things not directly related to >the coordination of unique
identifiers. There are other, more decentralized mechanisms for dealing with
the policy >problems.

I would like know which ones are these. Milton, are you veering around to
the point that there is no need for any global IG public policy processes/
structures… or, assuming you are counting in WIPO, WTO etc, that there is no
need of some specifically IG/ IS ones?

Milton has also spoken about the Framework Convention as being the way out.
However, if that’s the real way forward as seen by Milton (and IGP) it is
intriguing why we hear so little about it from them. It comes in Milton’s
argumentations, for logical consistency, but if the real solution lies in an
FC why doesn’t Milton’s considerable writing and advocacy energy get focused
on it?  The fact that an FC looks like a long way off (if ever possible)
cannot deter us because civil society (CS) is still the right space/ actor
to start developing the ground. And there are significant advantages in
being the first mover. My this line of discussion with Milton/ IGP goes back
to prepcom 2/3 of Tunis phase when I has just about started to know the IG
world. IGP produced a paper on how ICANN shouldn’t do public policy, and
promised to write another paper on who should do it then. I argued that the
two are connected issues, so please hurry with your views on who should? As
far as I know that second paper was never written. I know this is the
difficult part, but it is important and inescapable. You cant speak about
one thing without speaking about the other. So lets work on that …. It is a
better way of taking public policy work away from ICANN, than saying first
ICANN should abstain and then we will think of where the responsibility
falls. I can never understand this logic of working for a public policy
vacuum. 

The only reason for doing so can be that the default political/ policy
situation works for some. And this is that the crux of the problem. And the
real division is between those for whom the present IG political system is
working and those for whom it isn’t. The visible division of opinions as
described here on the policy role of ICANN is a red herring. Note that for
many proponents on either side the present system is essentially fine, and
they aren’t proposing specific alternatives. For those who think that the
present system is BASICALLY wrong aren’t even positioned as one clear side
of the debate. 

Karl has suggested that we can wait for some future period of maturity and
consensus, and till then keep political issues off from our agenda. Politics
doesn’t cease because one orders it to – every social structure is as
completely political as another – the difference is only in the distribution
of power within the structure …

So, this stance that ICANN shouldn’t do public policy is not meaningful
without some clarity about, and clear evidence of devotion of energy for
moving towards, what may be legitimate public policy structures. I think IGC
should be strongly pushing for a ‘legitimate public policy space’ for IG in
a single-minded devotion to the cause. It can be done through persistent
efforts at seeking accountability regarding the enhanced cooperation
proposal, and it could be about beginning a CS sponsored set of activities
for developing internationally applicable public policy principles for IG
and proposing structural innovations for it. Here, I am not specifically
pushing the FC agenda though something like that looks to me the way to go. 

Content management is political and ICANN-GAC system is fine in doing it.
But is it representative and legitimate … 

The second stream that came out of the .xxx debate is of those who accept
that ICANN work involves socio-political considerations and that it is
important for ICANN to be sensitive to these. The proponents of this
position accept that ICANN does public policy – independently, or through
its uneasy relationship with GAC. This group seems to be comfortable with
ICANN – GAC doing the required public policy, and, as I understand, look
forward to an evolution of this system as more IG policy issues come up. My
problem with this stance is that I see ICANN as very unrepresentative of the
vast majority of the world, and therefore not a legitimate body for this
role. There is no connect between this big majority and ICANN structures. No
development sector CS constituencies are represented and private sector and
big corporations are over represented, making for an exact inversion of how
public bodies need to be shaped for our objectives of a more just, equal and
free world. And in my view these distortions are structural and cannot be
corrected by incremental changes. And now as the government sector gets
better and better accommodated by ICANN, we may be moving towards an
alliance of the rich, corporates and governments doing mutual accommodations
and governing the most important infrastructure of the emerging information
society in their interests. For me it is a scary scenario. I quote a recent
email by Mawaki.

>Meanwhile, the transition has unfortunately been on and on...

>too long, untill now all the governments are realizing what power they can
exert over the central infrastructure of the >Net ….. In a short while, they
will all love ICANN and oppose any institutional change;…...

The CS from the South (and most non-tech background progressive groups from
the North) do NOT see ICANN as a friendly space at all. They feel relatively
more comfortable at the IGF, and will be comfortable with an international
FC kind of process. For this reason, as starting point, we need to be able
to discuss ICANN at IGF. 

Our plans for IGF

I am not in favor of just repeating our February statement at the May IGF
consultations. That time one person could veto the proposal that we demand
ICANN be discussed at the IGF. I don’t see how we can move forward with such
a situation. If IGC cant ask ICANN to be discussed at IGF, then we have more
faith in ICANN than the IGF. I think this is a kind a basic position on
which I will rather go for a caucus voting and clarify for once and for all.
We cant do any advocacy at all if we remain shackled with these kinds of
things. If we cant discuss ICANN at IGF I myself don’t see much point in
going there. 

I have a feeling that with ICANN and IGF being seen as ‘our’ spaces as
against those where governments dominate, we are becoming too much of
insiders in these institutions, and do not much look like a CS group
anymore, which always have a strong and boiling advocacy issue or two, for
which they may be ready to be aggressive and make protests etc….

  So, I propose that we identify some clear advocacy agendas and plan our
strategies around them. Otherwise we aren’t making much impact, and aren’t
representing the wider CS issues and interests that we promised to do in our
charter.  In brief, I think we should be pushing for three themes strongly
for Rio – 

(1)   Asking insistently about what’ s on with global IG public policy
processes and structures – speaking about the enhanced cooperation process,
and in case there is sufficient internal consensus in CS, try to build
towards an FC kind of process.

(2)   Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN – to have ICANN interface
with and be accountable to the many constituencies (which by far makes the
majority of the world’s population) which cant access its present
structures.

(3)   Develop and discuss what constitutes a ‘development agenda in IG’. A
really through discussion will help us go beyond the tokenistic listing of
‘access’ as the main agenda of Rio. 

Parminder 

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34
PM

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34
PM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070409/8e565779/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070409/8e565779/attachment.txt>