ICANN Reform (was ... RE: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)) ... coming back one circle :-)

[Guru@ITfC]

I thought Avri was making a more profound point in her mail when she spoke
of 'we would also need to study the use of accusations of rudeness in their
tactical role in internet discussion.'
 
How sometimes instead of responding to the substantive points in a posting,
the person on the receiving end is eager to cry 'ad hominem' ... and when
issues relating to deficiencies and limitations in the ICANN structures are
raised, it gets deflected as a personal attack on those believing in ICANN
and current ig structures. I have not still found responses to basic
questions on current ig structures/ICANN on:
 
a. is it worth giving feedback when one is not sure if the feedback will be
taken seriously and there is an accountability mechanism to ensure that such
feedback is taken to its logical conclusion (when also there is evidence
that it has sometimes not been given due attention). 

B. Will 'political' issues be swept under the carpet of 'technical matters
left to technical experts' - if ICANN is not a global public policy body how
did it decide (either way or any way) on .xxx 
Can we accept that ICANN (or any other institution in its place) would need
to do global public policy and hence would need to function under rules of
such global policy making/global governance (which I agree are in the
making)
 
c. how does the current structure of ICANN (its relationship with DOC) give
scope for it to be a legitimate global governance and policy institution.
Why should other countries, institutions (CS and others) accept as
legitimate the current unilateral control. Also the dominance of a small
group (big business interests, small number of Governments / institutions -
CS and others) and the exclusion (intended or otherwise) of other groups and
constitutencies within ICANN / ig makes it even more unlikely candidate for
fair or just governance. It is not surprising that IDNs or IPv4 or new GTLDs
issues though critical are dealt with at an 'easy' pace ... Those who are
the biggest losers from this non-development are least represented
(relatively) in the current structures. 'Stability' (vested interests)
scores over 'development' priorities though both are given same lip service.
 
Most defence of the current relationship with DOC is based on the threat
that 'do you want UN kind of a structure, the current structure is much
better'. There are several issues with such logic - is this an 'either or'
situation or are we looking at new innovations in global governance
structures that can be better than both 'Inter Govt' structures or single
power centres. Is the claim of 'bottom up' etc really valid (as the recent
debates on Reinstate the vote reveal) and how can 'bottom up' really coexist
with being 'industry led';  to me this seems an oxymoron (the vision
reiterated recently by the new ICANN chair). And is the even the vision of
the 'next billion' really 'bottom up' ... Or more 'bottom of the top'?
 
As I have said before the current ICANN/ig structure is 'de-facto' (by
defintion, it exists and it works), it is certainly not 'de-jure' in the
sense of being legitimate or just. Of course ICANN reform can also proceed
through obtaining feedback and effecting changes. (Every critic of the
current dispensation need not be considered an ICANN hater or someone who
wants to replace ICANN with Inter Govt structures). While this current
structure may have made sense in the initial days of the internet (more
academic and technical community users), now that its role and use has
signifcantly grown to touch almost all aspects of human life across the
entire world - communication, commerce, entertainment, development,
relationships, information exchange, its current governance is out of touch
with this reality. Way far out of touch. 

d. The nature of accountability mechanisms for a governance / public policy
('gatekeepers' / 'rule makers') institution would need to be far more
clearer and stricter than for other institutions (Suresh, certainly ICANN
needs more probity than IGP!). How is mandate determined, renewed, how are
issues of ignoring constituencies dealt with etc - some of Dan's mails have
elaborated on this aspect. Maybe we need more complex structures than
oversight by people who those who can 'afford the time and money' - that
straightaway biases the nature of participation and accountability

e. Given this fundamental deficiencies in legitimacy, it is not correct,
imo, for some people to insist that ICANN reform can ONLY be done at the
structures and processes of ICANN and CANNOT be done elsewhere, to me this
is doubtful; fundamental reform of this nature needs to be
supra-institution. IGF (remember CIRs!) can be one such process for
initiating ICANN reform (we hope -; ). And hence 'posting on these lists'
need not be considered a poor substitute to participating in ICANN feedback
processes, after all, nobody is stopping Kieren from abstracting the views
on this list into the formal feedback processses within ICANN. (And if ICANN
feedback processes do not allow for such abstraction, maybe Kieren has some
internal work on this front). The open and free discussions on this list has
a value in itself. Of course neither is it wrong for anyone to participate
in ICANN reform processes (I hope to participate in the Feb Delhi ICANN
meeting and learn, understand and contribute!)
 
While I must record my understanding and even appreciation of the efforts of
Kieren, Veni and many others in ICANN reform through democratic feedback
processes, some of these issues are possibly beyond their remit of influence
and hence these questions are not intended to be a reflection on their work
or their intentions at all. In any case, I would request those who can
respond to some of these issues, not to treat these comments as any personal
attack (I can only respect and appreciate the sincere efforts of those who
believe in the current structures) and see if they can allay some of these
concerns. And those articulated by Meryem, Dan, Danny, Karl, Milton et al
...  I am fully with Bertrand in his call for engagement ... 

Regards,
Guru
_____________ 
Gurumurthy K 
IT for Change, Bangalore 
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
www.ITforChange.net 
________________________________

From: venimarkovski at gmail.com [mailto:venimarkovski at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Veni Markovski
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 10:30 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)


Agree with Avri. 
We can't educate people who are insulting other people. It should have been
done in the first 7 years. 

veni


On Nov 23, 2007 11:56 AM, Avri Doria < avri at psg.com <mailto:avri at psg.com> >
wrote:



	On 23 nov 2007, at 08.09, Norbert Bollow wrote:


		Given that the use of rudeness tectics against specific
people with

		the goal of reducing their ability to effectively
communicate their

		viewpoints is a significant problem in internet-based group

		dosucssions, I would suggest that it should be considered
part of the

		substance of internet governance discussions to figure out
how this

		problem should be addressed.


	
	
	i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality.
	
	
	we would also need to study the use of accusations of rudeness 
	in their tactical role in internet discussion.

	while i do think it would make for a interesting academic exercise
and if
	i can find a student who also thinks it a cool subject would try to 
	support that research, i am not sure that it is quite ready to be
considered
	a substantive part of the Internet Governance debate.

	a.

	 ps, was this rude? 

	____________________________________________________________
	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