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

Mon Apr 16 17:39:40 EDT 2007

Lee,

where we differ mostly is that I still think we are in a stage in which we 
need to build the governance (structures, organizations, or in some cases 
only practices) adequate for each problem.

Take a look at http://www.apwg.org to see how different phishing looks 
from the DNS at this stage, for example...

Re your concept of Framework Convention, the idea becomes clearer - you 
want it drafted by all stakeholders, then signed by governments? - and has 
some parallels with environmental governance including all the thorns ;-).

I still see huge differences but none that impede rational discourse and 
civil treatment at this stage of discussion. Not ripe for Rio though - 
this plays too much into the local hosts' very own agenda. And they are 
not playing a loyal game. The practical politics is another set of 
considerations of much weight here.

Glad to talk to you.

Yours,

alx

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      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 Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Lee McKnight wrote:

> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:15:49 -0400
> From: Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu>
> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de,
>     Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
> Subject: Re: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf
> 
> Wolfgang, Alejandro,
>
> I generally agree with both of you.
>
> Which is why I suggest the focus on the beasts in the room, and
> something of an ongoing 'gap analysis' to understand what else might be
> needed. In time.  And why I circumscribed the discussion to Internet
> governance, not global governance in general.
>
> But still if I can stretch the analogies, and make clear I am expressly
> not proposing global government, early ICANN was kind of like the euro
> coal and steel union of the 50s, which was 'only' trying to rationalize
> a couple industries, suffering from overcapacity rather than scarcity in
> our case.  A technical matter.
>
> ICANN then evolved into something more like the EU commission - without
> the political oversight.  Which led to the natural reaction of
> WGIG/WSIS. And Maastricht etc. But still like the EU, ICANN is quite
> aware of a lot of messy Internet policy areas it would much rather stay
> out of, and leave to others to debate and try to fix. But if there's
> noone else in the room, they are the only usual suspect to look to. In
> EU circles it is all about 'subsidiarity,' where if it's possible to
> leave the EU out and member states address, then they do. In general.
>
> IGF is a bit like the early Euro parliament, lots of talk but by the
> design of its makers little to no power.  Odds on it gaining hard power
> are long, but IGF as an insititution as such is all of a few months old.
> So, too soon to say.  But expressing opinions on what it should or
> should not be next are appropriate.
>
> Between ICANN and its constrained by design areas of competence and
> authority, which reasonable people can reasonably disagree on (and it is
> the fate of all regulators is to be bashed and sued regularly, so best
> just get used to it) and IGF's expansive field of discussion, there
> is...well what exactly? At the moment, not much. Hence this discussion.
> (and just to be clear, I never assumed ICANN would 'take direction' from
> igf - but I ndo assume folks will listen to suggestions an d
> recommendations.)
>
> I'm not sure why an 'Internet framework convention' couldn't help
> elaborate, in time, what else might be needed for global Internet
> governance. I also don't see why an Internet framework convention is
> necessarily top down, is decided upon by states rather tham principally
> by indviduals or yes stakeholder groups, nor why eg this open email list
> discussion wouldn;t count as part of it.
>
> In fact I think the convention's already begun, semi-formally, with
> Parminder's discussion of the concept at IGF I.  Not very state-centric
> so far, in fact states think nothing's happening 'cause they didn;t say
> 'start.'
>
> Anyway, my basic point is this set of issues should be on the agenda of
> IGF II, for discussion. Kind of where are we now, where are we going,
> with the 'we' being icann & igf, & any internet governance beasts not
> yet created.
>
> Lee
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
>>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/16/2007 9:59 AM
>>>>
> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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