[governance] Framework convention

[Alejandro Pisanty]

Milgon,

since you ask, the directions I am pushing in are pretty simple and clear:

1. move beyond your obsession with ICANN and put the collective talent 
available to work on Internet Governance issues far more in need of work.

End of numbering.

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 Sat, 21 Apr 2007, Milton Mueller wrote:

> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 18:39:53 -0400
> From: Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> To: apisan at servidor.unam.mx
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] Framework convention
> 
>>>> apisan at servidor.unam.mx 4/20/2007 5:02:26 PM >>>
>> Devising a global-governance structure that can have a chance
>> to be useful in any issue other than the now-solved coordination
>> of the DNS, IP addressing, etc. systems is hard, requires domain-
>> specific knowledge and depth of thought.
>
> Yes it's hard, etc. And your point about what should be done next
> is....?
>
> Contrary to what you say there are many global governance issues
> related to DNS/IP addressing that remain manifestly unsolved. Including,
> for example, the legal and organizational status of ICANN, its
> representational structures, and the nature of its relationship to
> national governments. ICANN becomes the focal point of so many of these
> conversations because it is an established, fully globalized regulatory
> structure. Various interest groups like to leverage that for policy
> purposes. As long as there is no real institutional solution to the
> "public policy" problem ICANN will continue to be a magnet for those
> concerns.
>
>> No wonder that the people who deal with [many issues] have
>> gone elsewhere, even for interacting with the recognized
>> experts among us.
>
> Gone where? Actually, more are coming into this space than ever before.
> As I learned in several recent speaking engagements, people in many
> other issue domains are still surprisingly ignorant of ICANN, IG and the
> Forum. Some will become interested when they learn what it is about,
> some will not. But an IGF that can't directly discuss ICANN-related
> issues is not worthy of the name.
>
>> Not to speak of the once-held idea that there are a large
>> number of organizations with a claim for relevance in Internet
>> governance which do not comply with the WSIS criteria about
>> which no-one has even started a discussion here.
>
> It seems to me that Bill Drake and others on this list have been trying
> to start a discussion of that for the last 18 months. I didn't notice
> you helping them. Indeed, I thought you were in the "keep the IGF
> focused on safe and innocuous generic themes like access, openness and
> security" camp. And it also seems to me that a framework convention or
> some other conscious and formal global governance process would be the
> best way to address those issues, but again I don't recall seeing you
> devote any energies to exploring that approach.
>
> Bottom line, Alejandro its hard for me to tell what direction you're
> pushing in. The tacit tone is that we should all just go home and leave
> ICANN and all other existing institutions alone.
>
____________________________________________________________
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