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

Mon Apr 16 22:13:13 EDT 2007

Lee,

glad to read this, esp. affinity in relationship with domain-specific 
governance.

As far as anyone can tell, there will be a discussion about ICANN in Rio, 
before Rio, and after Rio. Your comment is very well taken.

Now, I guess it is time to discuss something related to any of the many 
domains that still are waiting for some form of solution to their 
problems. Now that you mentioned your use of APWG in class, my interest is 
piqued about your views on phishing-related governance!

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 Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Lee McKnight wrote:

> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:43:58 -0400
> From: Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
> Cc: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
> Subject: Re: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf
> 
> Alejandro,
>
> I still don;t see the disagreement, I was just making your specific
> apwg point in class an hour ago.  and yes of course governance should be
> appropriate to the domain, and we are just developing mechanisms for
> particular areas, that's the whole point.
>
> In earlier commentary I was talking about the framework thing as
> probably a ten year process, so any 'premature' conclusions are a decade
> away.
>
> And I doubt ICANN, or industry for that matter, need fear a discussion
> at IGF II.  You're seriously worried?  You see how well the Bush admin's
> 'I don't want to talk about it, and especially not with them' policies
> worked  - I advise a more proactive, and positive, agenda-setting
> stance.  Because otherwise you can be sure it will be spun by others.
>
> Lee
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
>>>> Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx> 4/16/2007 5:39 PM >>>
> 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