[governance] .xxx. igc and igf

Wed Apr 11 09:48:25 EDT 2007

Hi Parminder

As a member of an ALS from a developing country, we are one of several
groups that have recently joined ICANN via the ALAC and its Regional
Organisations. They are still very very new, but we are testing to see how
this can work for us. To us, the RALO is an organization that can take our
issues to ICANN, and explain ICANN’s sometimes confusing policies and
processes to our constituents so that we can then create our input to ICANN.
I’m a member of LACRALO, which is about 3 months old. So we will see.

If you are interested, there’s APRALO for Asia-Pacific, and you can join;
talk to Izumi about it

Jacqueline

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:14 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Vittorio Bertola'
Subject: RE: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf

Vittorio 

> Parminder ha scritto:

> > (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.

> 

> Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't

> access its present structures"? (Vittorio) 

I did give a clue. ” the majority of the world’s population “…… But let me
explain. (Apologies, if it a lengthy response. I don’t want to give snappy
replies, so I will go into some detail. Since you have invited me to attend
ICANN meetings, I must give good reasons why I, and others of the
constituencies I refer to, may not be particularly inclined to do so.)

Exclusion is a very complex process and operates in a number of ways. One
way is to judge it through its results – I don’t see anyone in ICANN – or
anyone interacting with ICANN - who could be seen as representing (or
speaking for) disadvantaged people from developing countries (this could be
called the development constituency, for the purpose of the present
conversation). It could either be because ICANN’s functions do not impact
these people, which I hope you do not believe. Or that these people are
excluded from accessing ICANN policy making structures. 

Other than to judge it in this direct way, as I said, exclusion is a very
complex process. But, I will try to quickly summarize some points on what
makes ICANN inaccessible to these people. I don’t want to give snappy
replies, so I will go into some detail.

*	ICANN proceeds from ideological principles which are alien to these
people, and not acceptable to them for a global governance body. It starts
with a private sector nomenclature which doesn’t mean the same to these
people as it means to ICANNists, and this vocabulary isn’t the practice at
global governance bodies. It goes on to its view of the world as a
marketplace (and not much else), and to its predominant catering to
corporate interests. Its mission and core values speak about the value of
competition but forgets about that of collaboration (despite it, people have
shown the unprecedented possibilities of collaboration on the Internet), it
speaks about markets but avoids terms like publics and commons…. ICANN
zealously upholds IPR but hasn’t done anything to promote universal access
to knowledge. People know which places will welcome them, and which to
avoid. No one declares exclusion. 

*	Typical governance structures try to over-represent interests that
need special protection, and build strong systems to minimize influence of
vested interests that already dominate and could skew the processes their
way. This is the essence of the principle of equity. ICANN seems to actively
encourage the latter. There are good amount of elements in ICANN of working
as a professional association of a particular trade which does everything to
maximize its membership’s interests (which have an ever present tendency to
go against wider public interest). The development constituency is very wary
of such ‘privatized governance’ and it has seen its ill-effects in many
social sectors… They aren’t willing to be party to new forms of such
governance which can be trend-setting for the information society. 

*	ICANN hides its public policy impacts and tries to present itself as
a technical coordination body. Now, these people (the development
constituency), I refer to, and those who speak for them, are not
techno-fascinated and are NOT interested in technical management. They do
not want to be in a body which says, well, there isnt any public policy work
that we do. But we all know the public policy impact of ICANN’s functions. I
am very clear that the public policy implications of ICANN’s work can be
separated from the technical functions and presented in socio-political
language of their real content, which, in case of the impact on these
excluded people I refer to, will be presented in a way they can connect to.
But it doesn’t serve ICANN to do so. It seem to think that its survival in
its present form depends on underplaying (and for this purpose camouflaging
in technical terms/ discourse) its public policy impact. This doesn’t help
participation from other than a charmed circle of insiders.

*	ICANN invents and drives a discourse which aids self-preservation.
For instance, it speaks of its accountability to the ‘global internet
community’. Many times on this list I have requested anyone to clarify the
meaning of this term to me. Whether it involves all those who in some ways
are internet professionals (including internet businesses), whereby it
becomes a trade body, or all those who use the Internet, or all those who
are impacted by the Internet (which is practically, everyone in this world).
One can’t associate with an organization which doesn’t clarify its
legitimate constituency. The development constituency works with and for
people who may still not be big users of the Internet (if at all), but
Internet polices affect them in important ways, including as a set of
significant possibilities to change power equations that at present
dis-empowers them. One is not sure in interacting with ICANN if one is
siding with an insider group which doesn’t consider the outsider group as
its constituency. 

*	Through its individuation of its constituency, and not taking into
account that people are organized in various social forms which are as
relevant as their individual identities (no doubt done to avoid governments
staking the claim to be representing their people) ICANN is able to actively
avoid participation of most people. They are increasingly allowing
governments in under pressure, but what about others….. Not willing to be
discussed at IGF, and not facing those people who cannot access ICANN
structures is a further link in, and proof of, this process of exclusion.
ICANN just doesn’t speak the language of these people I am talking about,
and the two sides have a good distance to travel before they set into a
meaningful interaction….. Who is supposed to make the effort?  And this is
the final test of inclusion/ exclusion. Inclusion doesn’t happen by making
self-righteous claims, it happens through an active outreach to
constituencies which may feel as outsiders and/or neglected. Does ICANN do
it? For starters, they can have a session of interactions at the IGF.

These were some points that come to my mind in describing ICANN’s
inaccessibility for some important constituencies… I must say here that I
have no doubt that ICANN does some very important global work, and many at
ICANN are trying to improve the world in all possible ways. What I mean to
stress here is that they need to look out to the larger world with a more
open and welcoming mind.

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]

> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:44 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder

> Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf

> 

> Parminder ha scritto:

> > (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.

> 

> Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't

> access its present structures"? There are at least a couple of places

> where civil society groups can become involved in ICANN.

> 

> I think that it might be more productive to actually involve more CS

> folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF (even if you

> succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would happen after the

> discussion? I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which

> ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). At the last ICANN meeting,

> between known faces scattered in corridors, there were talks of a fixed

> civil society meeting on the last day of every ICANN meeting - that

> might be a good point to start, for example.

> --

> vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------

> -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------

> ____________________________________________________________

> 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

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007
10:59 PM

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007
10:59 PM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070411/5e19c559/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070411/5e19c559/attachment.txt>