AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf

Sun Apr 15 23:34:26 EDT 2007

Lee,

(distribution list cleaned up)

the point you are getting at is what in the WGIG we brought up as follows: 
what little there is of Internet Governance organizations and institutions 
is oriented to solve a problem at a time, not to create a Government of 
the World or even a Government of the Internet, well, not even a single, 
all-encompassing system of Internet Governance.

There are too many problems which are not amenable to the same type of 
solutions (other than the general principles that WSIS sort of managed to 
pick up) nor bring together the same actors. Varying weights and roles for 
governments, for the direct or indirect representation of individuals 
within different mechanisms, for profit-seeking and for non-profit 
organizations, for academic institutions, for academics, and for the 
technical community are required to face stuff as different as are, for 
example, spam and freedom of access to information.

What "model 2" from the WGIG was meant to do is to build up institutions, 
based on principles, when doing so will solve a problem, and then of 
course build up the right type of organization (always making sure that 
the different stakeholders are represented properly, the rule of law 
obtains, etc.) and NOT build nor try to build now an all-encompassing 
institution.

So, ICANN may evolve, as you say, "yet again into a somewhat different 
beast" (it most surely will) but it will still be concentrated on the 
coordination needed for the centrally organized unique-value identifiers 
of the Internet. And, taking the positive from your message, studying the 
ICANN experience instead of beating it to the death will allow to build up 
other organizations properly.

In pursuing the above, or other trajectories, one must also make sure that 
Civil Society is not being recruited to do someone else's dirty work. That 
is one of the risks that I see this year for moving towards a Framework 
Convention, as well as that the idea fuels or resonates with the idea of a 
Global Government, besides other objections that may become a separate 
track when timely.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540
http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
*
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
  Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Lee McKnight wrote:

> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:49:24 -0400
> From: Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu>
> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu>
> To: karl at cavebear.com, governance at lists.cpsr.org,
>     wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
> Cc: Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu>
> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf
> 
> Hi Karl,
>
> Just catching up, from a critique of ICANN's administrative practices around .xxx we've morphed into the phantasmagoria of  alternate new internet governance beasts. Or inter-related global governance processes.
>
> Multi-stakeholder processes can be imperfect and can be captured, but I didn;t see the alternative you were preferring - certainly not just states, or just businesses ie a pure trade association model?   Neither would work here I believe there is general consensus on that. And while debating global governance in general is fun, we have a more limited objective here. 'Only' global Internet governance ; ).
>
> Which yes may set a model for other international areas, but that's not for us to say.  And yeah in political science it is considered that corporatism led to fascism but except for occasionally intemperate emails here I don;t see multistakeholder as more prone to abuse than other interational  processes.  In fact looks a lot more transparent, and potentially, accountable.
>
> I also  recognize the multi-stakeholder elephant in the room, ICANN, which personally I also prefer to the state-centric mastodon some seem to yearn for.  Before ICANN learned regulation 101 there was regulatory capture theory 101 taught to some stakeholders locked out of some virtual rooms, tis true, but hey that's politics.  And ICANN has shown itself adaptive, so I for one don't underestimate ICANN's staying power as it evolves yet again into a somewhat different beast.
>
> I also see the new, very lightweight, possibly shape-changing (after 2010) Internet Governance Forum.
>
> Neither is 'democratic' in the sense of a local or national election, but on the other hand we're not talking about local or national things here. And yes there is this minor detail of it being REALLY important to loads of businesses. governments, and individuals that the Internet work.  And compared to the state/UN-centric alternatives, no offense, but these beasts both look more lively and more attuned to changing interests - of civil society as well as the usual suspect government and business interests - in the Internet working.
>
> Ok, if that's the zoo we got, the question on the virtual table is whether and  how to perform surgery on these beasts, what they may evolve into next, or whether instead to conjure up one or more additional Internet governance institutions. Since there seems a limited number of folks interested in debating these issues, my caution would be to make sure beasts 1 & 2 get along, before adding a further new species to the zoo.
>
> Hence the suggestion of coordinated discusions around  'ICANN at the IGF' or however this gets characterized by then.
>
> This doesn't replace the need for the Framework Convention which could be the design studio for as many democratic and representative Internet governance institutions - or current institutions transformed into ALSO internet governance bodies - as governments, businesses, and civil society determine are needed.
>
> Lee
>
>
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
>>>> karl at cavebear.com 4/15/2007 3:34 PM >>>
> Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>
>> ICANN has made a step in the right
>> direction by trying to be multistakeholder  ...
>
> I have very severe reservations about that formulation.
>
> "Multistakeholder" is a euphemism that means that many interests are
> excluded.  Most notably those people, groups, and countries that have
> fewer resources or a diffuse, but often cumulatively large interest.
>
> Moreover, we have seen via ICANN how some groups can recast themselves
> at will to obtain multiple voices as multiple stakeholders - as for
> example how a business can be both a trademark stakeholder, a business
> stakeholder, a registry stakeholder, a registrar stakeholder, etc.
>
> As I have urged elsewhere, I consider the "stakeholder" method of
> assigning weight and authority to be a kind of not-so-slow acting poison
> that will, sooner or later, transform and ossify a governance body into
> a body of industrial protection.
>
> Aggregations and legal fictions that wish to express opinions are quite
> proper vehicles and they ought to have the right to speak and debate.
> But when it comes to measuring the weight of opinions, the measure
> should be of the opinions of the natural people that form such
> aggregations or legal fictions.
>
> Yes, I know that this is contrary to the current vogue.  However, if we
> continue the method of giving weight and preference to organized
> industrial interests, under the euphemism of "stakeholder", we are going
> to end up with a system of collective industrial baronage not unlike
> that which obtained in the US during the period between 1870 and 1900, a
> system that had to be dismantled.
>
> Do we really want to include a fatal gene into systems of interenet
> governance and create a genetic defect that will over time doom all of
> our efforts?
>
> We can begin by abandoning the words "stakeholder" and
> "multistakeholder" and use a phrase that more properly encompasses what
> we want to achieve which is systems of internet governance that are
> considerate of and responsive to all concerns but that measure the value
> of their decisions on the basis of the effect on the entire internet
> community, present and future.
>
> 		--karl--
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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