AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf

[Kleinwächter, Wolfgang]

Alejandro:
 
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.

Wolfgang:
 
I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a pioneer, trying to explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing into directions where others have to take the lead to be active or where a "new beast" has to be created (always based on the principle of multistakholderism and open and transparent processes). My problems with the "Framework Convention" (a tradtional intergovernmental treaty) are the same like Alejandro. It creates a box and the history tells us that some people will start to fill the box with something that the creators of  such a box had not in mind. This is top down. Bottom up means much more a case by case approach. In the new gTLD cases we are learning that we will have cases where we are at the crossroads between political and technical questions and neither ICANN nor the GAC will take the full responsibility for both and there is no procedure in place for a division of labour among the existing decision taking institutions. Here I see the need to "invent" something. But such an invention would be neither a new "world government of the Internet" nor another big organisation. It would like an ad hoc committee with a clear defined (narrow) mandate for decision making in a limited number of very specified cases.
 
Regards 
____________________________________________________________
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