[governance] Innovation

[Kleinwächter, Wolfgang]

Dear list
 
I was rather silent so far on this interesting debate but as a "veteran" I wanted to listen to the many voices around. 
 
It is always good to go back to history and to learn from the mistakes and to understand how contradictions - rooted in conflicting interests - have driven development. I was involved in the MAC when we discussed this with Charles Nession, Jonathan Zittrain (he was the Executive Secretary of the MAC) and others in 1999 in Singapore, Cambridge and Berlin (which paved the way for the elections), I was involved as  member of the MITF, and I workd together with Carl Bildt in the ALSG in 2001. In the first meeting in Stockhlom (2001) Carl Bildt, as former democratically elected prime minister of a democratic country, was rather sceptical about elections (too low voters turnour to be really democratic). But in the course of the debate he changed his mind, saw this as an innovation and became a supporter of elections, however just for domain name holders, which can be easier indentified than e-mail address holders. 
 
The final ALSG report, which recommended this scheme - was critisied because such an election would have excluded a lot of students from universities who normally do not have an own domain name. The argument was that this is like in the middle ages where just land oweners have right to vote. The report was presented in Montevideo where they have a lot of experiences with Latifundistas. However the report recommended elections. This was on September, 8, 2001. And as we know, September 11, 2001 changed ICANN from a playground on Cyberdemocracy into a project of Cybersecurity. Believe it or not, we live (unfortunately) now in a different world.
 
We can not go back to history. If history comes back one to one, than this is always a farce or a comedy. We have to move foreward. I fully support Gurus call for "creativity" and "innovation". We all agree that the stupid superstructure of ALS/RALO/ALAC was established to keep the individual users on a distance from policy development and decision making to minimze undefined "risks". And as long as the ALAC construction was as weak as it was (and is) this has worked well for the inventors of the system. 
 
Is there a chance for an innovative new approach? Why not.
1. the proposed "World Internet User Summit"  in June 2008 in Paris - as part of the ICANN meeting - is an unique opportunity. There is a need to start now with the preparations, to establish a drafting committee for an "Internet Users Declaration" and to do outreach beyond accredited ALS. Such a declaration can be based on all the nice documents of the 1990s, the elcetion experiences of 2000 plus the Civil Society Declaration from WSIS I. It will also go beyond the planned user event during the OECD Ministerial Meeting in Seoul just on the even of the Paris meeting. OECD includes only a limited number of states. 
 
2. the forthcoming ALAC review process offers broad opportunities to analyze the weakness and risks of the existing structures and to make constructive proposals. Peter Dengath Tresh, ICANNs new CEO, has underlined during the IGF in Rio, that the review process is part of ICANN democratization process. So this is the place where all the critics can be channeled.  
 
Looking backwards is sometimes useful. Looking forward is the challenge of the next couple of years. 
 
Regards
 
wolfgang
 
____________________________________________________________
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