[governance] IG: constitution and participation (was: .xxx. igc and igf)

[Mawaki Chango]

This is a far reaching insight, Parminda. A couple of
observations as follows.

Don't be surprised: yes IGC, or IG-focused CS in the WSIS and
post-WSIS, is populated with people that you may call ICANN
insiders, ICANNists, or ICANN fluent, etc. In a sense, the
contrary would have been surprising. Note that (this may sound
like a paradox, but) it is probably why IG "made in ICANN" has
become a central issue at WSIS (and don't be fooled like some
ICANN board members and some outside-board zealous thinking that
every time someone is critique of the organization, it's be
cause they hate it - far from that; there are may among us who
actually are ICANN lovers.)

Yes, people in IGC are from complex, various political and
cultural background as "CS" participants. Some are more interest
group lobbyists than others, some more activists than others,
some even more militant, etc. Some are pretty used to
participating in public policy by delivering a statement or
testimony before the legislative body of their country, while
others have to demonstrate in the streets. That diversity may
also be a part of the difficulties or limitations in mobilizing
IGC as per a certain idea of CS engagement.

Last, it is crystal clear: participation, or meaningful
participation (which is in my view a pleonasm) is not guaranteed
because one formally states: "everyone is free to join", not
even when people do actually attend the meetings. A whole other
challenge is how much can you "hear" and how much can you get
"heard"? *Whose* language do you speak, or *whose* language is
spoken in those settings? I'm not talking about "what language,"
which would refer to different idioms, but in whose terms, from
what worldview an issue get framed as an issue, and a non-issue
as non-issue? There are so many venues a "non insiders" may
appear and make an otherwise crucial point (at least from their
worldview) and just be met by a polite smile, without anybody
addressing, following up or taking up the issue. So you're
right, the constitution of ICANN itself, that eccentricity as
Ian pointed out, that "glass menagerie" as I'm tempted to call
it paraphrasing Tennessee Williams, its formation and form, its
identity is blurred at best, and may not covey any meaning to
the largest portion of Internet users on earth. And it's good
you reminding us of this, worth keeping this in mind.

Mawaki

--- Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>  
> 
> 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
> 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> 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