[governance] RE: In the wake of RegisterFly, is ICANN taking flight?

Tue Apr 10 12:25:52 EDT 2007

It seems there is a key distinction to be drawn here.

When the larger world is the audience, then 
political realities may require strong positions 
'in opposition.'  When CS is talking to itself on 
the other hand, civility is likely prerequisite 
for deliberations-in-the-group that have some 
hope to be productive.  At least that is what 
experience shows.

Both would have a place, according to circumstance.

David

At 11:07 AM +0530 4/10/07, Parminder wrote:
>Hi Bertrand,
>
>  >There is an important criteria to appreciate 
>people's comments : do they help everybody 
>understand the issues or somebody's position 
>better ? do they introduce >principles that 
>unify or principles that divide ? do they help 
>shape a better system, that will be more just 
>and more efficient for everybody ? or will they 
>generate >more anger and opposition ?
>
>Yours is a very constructive approach, and we 
>should constantly remind us of these virtues and 
>ideals. I think it can help a lot if each of us 
>does reflect on these issues while participating 
>in this debate.
>
>With your permission, I will add a few riders to 
>this though. There are always some important 
>differences in adherences to values of what may 
>be construed as civility between the insiders 
>and outsiders to a dominating system. Many may 
>call the Seattle WTO protests as uncivil, but to 
>many they represent a watershed in subaltern 
>globalization and thus are almost sacred. So we 
>need to see the issues in terms of what may be 
>called as weighted neutrality.
>
>  >Looking forward to substantive and 
>constructive contributions on the real question 
>: what is the future institutional architecture 
>of Internet Governance ? and >where should it be 
>discussed ?
>
>These are just the main questions we should be focusing on.
>
>But it is important to understand the 
>socio-political context in which these questions 
>become so important.
>
>What is called the information society is deeply 
>impacting almost all social structures, and in 
>times of such far-reaching alignments it is 
>natural that social power struggles intensify. 
>It is a natural phenomenon, and we need not 
>self-delude ourselves about it.  And Internet is 
>the key infrastructure of the information 
>society (IS), and thus its governance and 
>polices have important implication in these 
>power struggles. That's why IG is important to 
>all of us.
>
>While these power struggles are going on at 
>multiple levels in the society (from, within the 
>household to airline ticketing industry) but it 
>is easier to understand them through some 
>generalizations At the very basic level it is a 
>power struggle between ordinary individuals and 
>institutions that have amassed illegitimate 
>power, and seek to use IS opportunities to 
>self-aggrandize. The state and the market are 
>two important such institutions. Civil society's 
>(CS) struggle is to ensure that this doesn't 
>happen, and we are actually able to use IS 
>opportunities to shift the balance in favor of 
>the ordinary individual.
>
>All our discussions on censorship lie in this 
>realm of state versus individual power struggle 
>in the IS. Incidentally, there is less 
>discussion on these forums on the market 
>(market, not as Adam's ideal, but the market 
>institutions as they exist) versus individual 
>power equations.
>
>Both these sets of struggles are important, but 
>for different placed people in differently 
>placed societies one may look more important 
>than the other To make matters worse, in the 
>struggles against governments markets often look 
>like a good ally, and in struggle against 
>markets (as they exist) governments look like a 
>good ally. All this complicates issues very 
>much, and make for a very political terrain.
>
>And then there is another important power 
>struggle among different groups of people, and 
>different societies (countries, if you will) who 
>are differently placed and are using the IS 
>context for collective aggrand©izement (how much 
>ever individuals within societies may refuse to 
>acknowledge their complicity in this, they 
>remain its beneficiaries and therefore in some 
>ways accomplices). I can describe many ways in 
>which this is being done, but I wont because I 
>think it is widely debated and understood. The 
>nature, governance and policies of IG implicate 
>this struggle as much as the others.
>
>So when we address the essential questions you 
>speak about we need to identify the context in 
>which different people and different societies 
>are placed vis a vis it. Such identification is 
>important as what you call as "substantive and 
>constructive contributions on the real question'.
>
>Whether my present inputs meets the criteria of 
>"do they introduce principles that unify or 
>principles that divide ?" I am not so sure.
>
>It depends on how we see it. If it intensifies 
>our adherence to our sectional interests, that 
>it fails your criteria. But if it helps to raise 
>our consciousness, and discourse, towards 
>commonly accepted principles of fair play, 
>justice (social, economic and all) and equity, 
>then it does.
>
>Best
>
>Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________
>Parminder Jeet Singh
>IT for Change, Bangalore
>Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
>Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
>Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
><http://www.itforchange.net/>www.ITforChange.net
>
>From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 7:45 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yehudakatz at mailinator.com
>Subject: Re: [governance] Re: In the wake of 
>RegisterFly, is ICANN taking flight?
>
>Point well taken, Yehuda,
>
>As you mention, I was indeed mistaken by the 
>spacing and attributed the words to you. So my 
>reminder is rather directed a M. Hanson (or 
>Hansen). :-)
>
>On substance, a very concrete element : the 
>debate he refers to about the legal status of 
>ICANN - and in particular the recent mention in 
>the President's Strategic Report of the possible 
>future evolution of its legal status has nothing 
>to do with the RegisterFly debacle. It very much 
>predates it and is on a completely different 
>level.
>
>The discussion is part of the delicate issue of 
>the future institutional architecture of 
>Internet Governance that occupied so much of the 
>time of the WSIS. ICANN was incorporated as a 
>non-profit California corporation in large part 
>by lack of any other truly international 
>structure available, apart from 
>intergovernmental treaty organizations. Remember 
>this was 1998.
>
>The discussion today is about inventing the 
>right type of framework for truly 
>multi-stakeholder governance mechanisms, as 
>Wolfgang and I have consistently argued. 
>Examining existing models (such as the Red Cross 
>or other Fertilizer association) is only food 
>for thought and not a direct comparison in terms 
>of functionalities. Nobody can claim he/she has 
>the ultimate solution. And we all have a joint 
>responsibility to invent it. As Saint Exupery 
>said : "You cannot predict the future, but you 
>can enable it".
>
>The most difficult activity in the coming months 
>and years will be to separate the right 
>questions from conspiracy theories; and to do so 
>without appearing to look down upon people who 
>are coming into the discussion without the 
>ten-year background information on the debates 
>that already took place. in particular, could 
>everybody accept that it is possible to 
>point ICANN's shortcomings and try to remedy 
>them, and at the same time recognize that people 
>working in it and its board members in 
>particular are also trying to do good and are 
>not just mischevious machiavelian traitors to 
>the cause of the global Internet Community ?
>
>I see the present debate heating up with a 
>mixture of attraction and fear : attraction 
>because such discussions are long overdue and it 
>is worth having them : the underlying issues are 
>essential; but fear also because common sense 
>can be easily overcome by righteous passions and 
>mutual respect is rapidly lost in the process.
>
>There is an important criteria to appreciate 
>people's comments : do they help everybody 
>understand the issues or somebody's position 
>better ? do they introduce principles that unify 
>or principles that divide ? do they help shape a 
>better system, that will be more just and more 
>efficient for everybody ? or will they generate 
>more anger and opposition ?
>
>The latter is easier. But let's give credit to 
>those who try more constructive approaches. This 
>does not mean there should be no debate, quite 
>on the contrary, but just that it should pit 
>ideas against ideas rather than people against 
>people. Unless these people are renouncing their 
>very humanity and, carried away by the seduction 
>of their own arguments, become mere instruments 
>of the ideas they believe in.
>
>Looking forward to substantive and constructive 
>contributions on the real question : what is the 
>future institutional architecture of Internet 
>Governance ? and where should it be discussed ?
>
>Best
>
>Bertrand
>--
>____________________
>Bertrand de La Chapelle
>On a personnal basis and not as an official French position.
>Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>
>"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir 
>les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry
>("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")
>
>
>
>
>
>On 4/9/07, 
><mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com>yehudakatz at mailinator.com 
><<mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com>yehudakatz at mailinator.com > 
>wrote:
>Bertrand,
>
>Just to clairify, the statements were from an artical, and are not my words.
>
>
><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/icann_registerfly_litigation>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/icann_registerfly_litigation
>
>
>I think the Author [Burke Hansen] a US citizen, realizes that ICANN was
>incorporated as " a nonprofit public benefit corporation ... " and
>
>His point is in regards to ICANN working under the status of an International
>Organization (Body), and using that status as an indemnifying shield, from
>legal culpability.
>
>
>The comparison He made was with the International Red Cross and International
>Olympic Committee (IOC)
>
>re:
>
>"... Why would ICANN need Red Cross-style international legal protections when
>it's not out saving refugees and inoculating babies like the Red Cross? The
>international organization that ICANN does have 
>something in common with is one
>famous for its opaqueness and arrogant lack of accountability, the
>International Olympic Committee (IOC). ICANN's 
>not saving the world. Like it or
>not, ICANN is engaged in commerce, not charity work, although it is a
>California nonprofit corporation. The IOC, too, is engaged in commerce, which
>is marketing the Olympics and extorting stadium facilities out of local
>communities. It would be unfortunate if ICANN were to take advantage of the
>RegisterFly mess as an excuse to lock itself away from public opinion the way
>the IOC has. ..."
>
>
>Being a US Non-Profit Organization, does not 
>create an 'International Body', of
>which sanctioning of its "International" status 
>ironically could be done by the
>U.N.
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> 
>   <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
> 
>   <http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>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/20070410/fa446ab6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070410/fa446ab6/attachment.txt>