[governance] IG: constitution and participation

[wcurrie at apc.org]

That seems to imply that the Icann environment is opaque and dependent on complex relationships that are not transparent or based on criteria that meet certain standards of administrative fairness, criteria that should be simple, staightforward and not mystifying, that should be visible to insiders and non-insiders alike.

Reputation is all very well in business and politics but not when it comes to public policy and matters of regulation in the public interest. The danger lies in the phenomenon of group think. And the development of an elite priesthood who protect their knowledge and status.

This is why there is no answer on the issue of administrative fairness, suggestions of an administrative procedures act or a framework convention, even though the latest MoU between the USG and Icann requiress steps to be taken with respect to administraive procedures and accountability.

Inevitably, in this kind of system non-insiders are perceived as the barbarians at the gates...who must be resisted by all means necessary...or tamed and incorporated into the elite...

The issue remains that a claim was made by Icann during the debate on governance at WSIS that the system of managing critical internet resources "ain't broke' so there is no 'need to fix it' and that Icann was involved in technical matters not public policy. The practice adopted by Icann in the .xxx decision demonstrates at least to non-insiders that both claims were false. Icann insiders don't see this or in some cases act hysterically to criticism. This seems to confirm a diagnosis of group think inside Icann's castle of smoke and mirrors.

Willie
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld  

-----Original Message-----
From: Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 08:47:09 
To:Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at yahoo.com>
Cc:governance at lists.cpsr.org, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] IG: constitution and participation

Mawaki Chango ha scritto:
> 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. 

You're right, but that's just true of any social system, more or less. 
Reputation (as opposed to titles of various kind) is the major source of 
credibility over the Internet, and you have to build it with care (and 
it takes time) whenever you show up in a new circle. I don't see how you 
could route around this, especially in relatively informal, discussion- 
and consensus-based environments.

On the other hand, "non insiders" have to realize that when they show up 
for the first time to a new place and think to know it all, possibly 
they should rather spend some time in learning why the things that look 
so wrong to them were done that particular way. I've never been 
sympathetic to the "we did it so we know better" argument that some old 
Internet engineers use to criticize proposals that they don't like, but, 
at the same time, there is value in listening and learning from history.
-- 
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