[governance] ICANN and the IGF

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 18 nov. 07 à 15:52, Vittorio Bertola a écrit :

> Pardon me if I enter the discussion at this stage - I just got back  
> from two days of flights and I haven't read all the rest.
[...]
> 2) couldn't we have a system where regulation is more distributed?  
> e.g. with multiple roots living under some coordination? Yes we  
> could - actually I wrote a short article exactly on that point in  
> the WGIG book, more than two years ago -

The more, the merrier..

> however, in the end, you do need some coordination, and thus some  
> form of central coordinating entity, even if one could imagine a  
> coordinating entity more lightweight than ICANN.

Exactly. If you'd taken the time to read all the rest, since the  
start of this thread before answering, then you'd have found that not  
only this need for coordination (though not necessarily a central  
entity) has been acknowledged, but also some preliminary rules for  
such a coordination has been drafted.

> So even people like you, who were never involved in ICANN, saw this  
> behaviour and thought: if they behave like this, there must be  
> something really bad going on. Nice strategy!

Having been never involved in ICANN doesn't necessarily mean haven't  
closely followed all this: not being involved somewhere rather means  
the choice of not willing to be part of it, in one way or another.  
I'm not involved in IGF - for IGF one, I was even in Athens for the  
GigaNet symposium and left on the first day of IGF -, while I've been  
fully involved in WSIS, from the first pre-WSIS preparatory meetings,  
even before PrepCom1 in 2002. It's a choice, based on how you  
consider the process.

> I have been involved in ICANN for the last seven years. I have seen  
> plenty of shortcomings, failures, political tricks. Yet I think  
> that, if examined objectively, ICANN scores much better than most  
> other global institutions, and that the remaining issues (such as  
> the relationship with the USG) can be overcome with due patience  
> and effort; *that* is where our efforts, as users and as civil  
> society, should go.

This is one opinion, which I respect, while disagreeing on this.  
There are more than "remaining issues" with ICANN, and I'm not  
necessarily comparing ICANN to other global institutions. After all,  
ICANN wasn't initially designed in continuity with these models, it  
started as a radically different model. So why should we stuck here  
with these comparisons?

> But:
>
>> Actually, during WSIS and now it's going on at IGF, this is  
>> exactly what's happening: constantly beating around the bush, when  
>> the real point is to ensure noone directly addresses the main  
>> issue for which WSIS as well as IGF have been set up.
>
> No, sorry, this is factually wrong.
>
> When the WSIS started, no one even knew what Internet governance was.

Speak for yourself:), whether you mean 1998 (initial proposal at ITU  
Plenipotentiary by Tunisia) or 2002 (official process start) as WSIS  
starting date! To give you one simple example that immediately comes  
to my mind, CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility)  
hold its 1998 annual conference in Boston, with general theme being  
"One Planet, One Net: The Public Interest in Internet Governance",  
with, inter alia, Lessig as keynote speaker addressing, guess what?!  
I do perfectly remember this, as I myself participated to this  
conference, being on a panel on universal access. CPSR was at that  
time running a campaign with this same slogan "one planet, one net".  
Many other groups (NGOs or business, foundations, etc.) and people  
were already working on Internet governance, as we currently  
understand the issue, including contributors to this list who will  
recognize themselves:)
Another example? At the 1998 OECD Ministerial meeting in Ottawa, a  
coalition of NGOs involved in the conference together with the OECD  
trade-union advisory committee (TUAC) addressed a letter to the  
Ministerial explicitely mentioning Internet governance. Still in  
liaison with OECD, the 1999 Public Voice conference that my own NGO  
co-organized with EPIC in Paris hosted a session on "ICANN and the  
public participation in Internet governance".
This only to mention early events that I know very well having taken  
part in them. I'm sure many other on this list can provide other  
examples.

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it started because of a synergy  
> between Tunisia's self-promotional efforts and the desire of the  
> United Nations to show activity in the shaping of the Information  
> Society, especially for developmental purposes - the fundamental  
> purpose, in fact, was ICT for development.

You're (partly) wrong, or more exactly this is over-simplification.  
Initial proposal by Tunisia at ITU Plenipotentiary may be difficult  
to get (Document 196 " Draft Resolution [Tun-1] - Holding of a World  
Summit on the Information Society ", but look at the final resolution  
from this 1998 plenipotentiary: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/ 
background/resolutions/73.html. Between 1998 and 2001, when the  
resolution to hold WSIS was adopted by the UN, the UN adopted the  
Millenium Declaration in 2000, where "new technologies" where  
referred to only as a mean to reach the "development and elimination  
of poverty" objective.

> When the IGF was created, its most important purpose was to address  
> all the other issues, those that did not have a regulator or a  
> venue for discussion yet. The nature of ICANN was to be addressed  
> by a separate program called "enhanced cooperation".

And where is this "enhanced cooperation" program? Can we participate  
to it? We all know the answer. I agree that the IGF was created to  
beat around the bush, once again. It's a "conversation". BTW, I  
notice that issues IGF is only starting discussing are being  
discussed for more than 10 years, in various arenas, and in many  
arenas, regions, etc. they've led to practical outcomes, like  
legislation and other means of regulation, some good, some bad. I'm  
amazed to see that, on many issues, IGF is rather rediscovering the  
wheel. I don't care if, for some people to get an armchair, or even a  
small seat, it needs organizing an international armchair discussion.  
But, on some particular issues, specially those touching to human  
rights, I'm worried that many participants are playing a dangerous  
game. For many of them, this is not intentional, but the result will  
be same. Who will be accountable for that?

Meryem

____________________________________________________________
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