[governance] Innovation
Alejandro Pisanty
apisan at servidor.unam.mx
Tue Nov 27 23:46:25 EST 2007
Lee,
too either/or to work and still prejudiced.
So be it.
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 Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Lee McKnight wrote:
> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:40:14 -0500
> From: Lee McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, marzouki at ras.eu.org, apisan at servidor.unam.mx
> Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation
>
> Meryem, Alejandro,
>
> Can I try to redirect as the lawyers say?
>
> One can look at ICANN as half full: a stunningly successful model of global governance of critical resources, an exemplar of multistakeholder inclusion in decsionmaking processes.
>
> One can also look at ICANN as half empty: unbelievably arcane, complex procedures, multiple fiefdoms controlled by special interests, absence of due process, etc. And oh yeah that detail of its country/state of origin.
>
> I suspect the 2 of you won't agree on which view is accurate.
>
> Which is fine. ICANN is a regulatory/governing entity, and people from time immemorial have critiqued governors and governance processes. ICANN is by definition fair game for critique, from the well informed, misinformed, and ill informed.
>
> if you're a regulator, your first priority must be your own internal processes for ensuring 'fair' outcomes. Whatever you do people will trash you, but you must try to have them be substantively wrong at least on procedural grounds, in that the outcomes achieved were done by fair processes, even if people still disagree on what the right answer might be.
>
> This is public policy 101. Which in the US is written up as the Administrative Procedures Act - look it up on wikipedia or google it; other nations have similar laws which I am not as familiar with.
>
> Why this is relevant is simple: IF ICANN had well-documented, transparent and objective processes for the awarding of gTLDs, that would be off the table/further along for comment and action; IF ICANN had straightforward processes for processing and maybe even occasionally acting on the views of individual Internet users (or legal fictions ie ngo's or corporation or governments), then all this string about the ALAC would have a quite different tone.
>
> So in other words while it is all well and good to invent new governance processes, it is also well and good to follow public policy 101 guidelines and procedures whenever and however possible, while doing so. That's 'good governance.'
>
> This would not replace the need for bottom-up participatory processes, would not replace elections as one possible way of making decisions, nor would it address the big idea of meryem's of an entirely new structure or structures.
>
> It would just make ICANN a better regulator of critical internet resources.
>
> Whether it might some day be replaced/transform into something else is unknowable at present, but maybe both Meryem and Alejandro and the rest of us can agree that whatever the model, whether of ALAC, ICANN more broadly, or Internet governance still more broadly, that fair, open, and transparent administrative procedures should be developed, and followed, whatever that might mean in a particular issue area? No small task in and of itself, and sure IETF, ICANN, and any number of other entities can be looked to for practical guiidance on what this might might mean for Internet governance.
>
> Again no need to tell me I have shortchanged ICANN, or given ICANN too much credit. You're both entitled to your opinions.
>
> Lee
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>>> apisan at servidor.unam.mx 11/27/07 8:36 PM >>>
> Meryem,
>
> thin skin problem and no substantive response. I apologize that you felt
> cased personally. I have no problem with your French or any other
> belonging. I did use a caricature of your view, not of your person or any
> group you identify with or others do. IMO in your overreaction - you
> qualify as anger my question - you are skirting the substance.
>
> Now, question, exercise, no anger, just trying to quantify the problem you
> want solved: do you acknowledge anything positive in ICANN?
>
> I will not escalate this dialogue any further to a flame war. I will take
> with me the lesson of the asymmetric definition of civil discourse.
>
> 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 Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>
>> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:47:19 +0100
>> From: Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org>
>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org>
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation
>>
>> A la Kieren: "Ad hominem attack".
>> But nevermind: I'm not impressed, and I shut up when I decide to, not when
>> coarse intimidation is tried.
>> I'm wondering why such anger? Why the mere critic of ICANN is provoking such
>> extreme and insulting reactions?
>> Meryem
>> PS. When you'll run short of French caricatures, just let me know. I'll tell
>> you know what's my other citizenship/culture/origin, so that you'll be able
>> to find in another folklore some hopefully more original insults.
>>
>> Le 28 nov. 07 à 00:48, Alejandro Pisanty a écrit :
>>
>>> Meryem,
>>>
>>> at this level of discourse it is proper that you go back to your Minitel. A
>>> nice, closed, government-controlled/guaranteed environment in which you do
>>> not need to be confronted with an opinion that varies from the one you
>>> hold, no need for open standards, no need for people of diverse views to
>>> come together and actually build something that works; just wait for the
>>> providers to do it for you. A neat, Cartesian, "clean, well-lighted place"
>>> (horrible things happened outside it but never mind.) Having vented off:
>>>
>>> We now know the many flaws you recognize in ICANN. To the best of what I
>>> can gather, many of the flaws you see derive from a lack of working
>>> knowledge of the organization and its evolution and are strongly tinted by
>>> prejudice. It is your privilege to say they aren't. So, exercise:
>>>
>>> What do you recognize in ICANN that is positive?
>>>
>>> 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 Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>>
>>>> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:29:56 +0100
>>>> From: Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org>
>>>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org>
>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Innovation
>>>>
>>>> Le 27 nov. 07 à 20:13, Alejandro Pisanty a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Meryem,
>>>>> this:
>>>>>> (NB. I do understand why people/organizations that currently benefit
>>>>>> from ICANN in one way or another want to keep their privileges. What
>>>>>> about others?)
>>>>> is really the core of your argument, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> No. I was not making an argument in this message actually. I was asking a
>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>>> You do not see a benefit in increased competition, gradual introduction
>>>>> of new gTLDs, increased coordination between the gTLD and the ccTLD
>>>>> space, a framework for a level of cooperation among RIRs not provided by
>>>>> the NRO, and between the different subsystems for the subset of critical
>>>>> Internet resources in this specific mandate, operation of the IANA
>>>>> function with respect to gTLDs, ccTLDs, protocol parameters, IPv4 and
>>>>> IPv6 addresses, gTLD data escrow to protect consumers from registry/ar
>>>>> breakdown's fallout, IDNs in the root, presence of technical, business,
>>>>> academic and civil society from the developing world which is not
>>>>> mediated or impeded by their governments, etc. etc. etc.
>>>>
>>>> Wow! God bless ICANN. Without it, we cannot have all this, then? And
>>>> before it was set up, we couldn't even dream of all this, right? I wont
>>>> even comment on your last sentence, and what it reveals ("developing world
>>>> governments can only *impede* the presence of their technical, business,
>>>> academic and civil society"). Simply agree with you that the introduction
>>>> of new gTLDs is *very* gradual..
>>>>
>>>>> Then your argument is that the hard-working Vittorios, Avris, Brets,
>>>>> Jacquelines, and so many others involved in the ALAC, and all others who
>>>>> actually make the system run, are only doing it to defend "privileges"?
>>>>
>>>> Et voila.. I ask "what about others?", and that's the only way you've
>>>> found to answer? It would probably better if you don't answer instead of
>>>> the concerned persons, BTW.
>>>>
>>>>> Or do you include among "those who benefit from ICANN" the many
>>>>> businesses, social organizations, and individuals who benefit from what
>>>>> is described three paragraphs above? What are their "privileges"? A
>>>>> stable, expanding DNS, IP allocation system, IANA, protocol-parameter
>>>>> space, etc., are "privileges"?
>>>>
>>>> God bless ICANN, once again. Since everything's perfect, why are we having
>>>> such discussions?
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list