[governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF'

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Thu Sep 6 19:07:47 EDT 2007 

Haven't we already moved well beyond this tired ITU vs. ICANN dichotomy? 
I sincerely believe that it was put to rest when the WGIG report's 4 options did not even include a takeover of ICANN functions by ITU. I think even the ITU has lost interest in it. It's not going to happen anyway. 

No, the issue is much more profound: national sovereignty vs. globality of the Internet, the role of territorial governments in setting global policy, the need for _global_ institutions to deliver effective governance, the threat that control of the resources of the internet can be abused for political purposes (by non-US as well as US states), the inability of power holders in the international system to agree on what sort of governance we should have, the pre-eminence of the US in the internet governance regime, etc. 

Since this is such a huge problem, institutionally and historically speaking, nothing can or will be done about it immediately, so we may as well start talking about it now, because it will take decades to resolve. So relax, ISOC, enjoy the ride. ;-)

Names and numbers (i.e., "critical resources) push globalization of governance debates to the forefront because they are essential to universal interoperability of the internet. If we can't manage to have effective global governance of those fairly well-bounded resource allocation and assignment problems you can forget about harder ones like security, content, e-commerce.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:32 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community
> or 'who is afraid of the IGF'
> 
> Hi Parminder,
> 
> judging from what I heard the last 3 days in Geneva what people find
> threatening are basically two things.
> 1. An ideological deadlock resulting from a polarizing discussion that
> narrows down potential options for future governance models to exactly
> two: intergovernmental (ITU) versus private (ICANN). We all know from
> WSIS that dichotomic debates don't lead anywhere because none of the
> participants seems willing to change political preferences.
> 
> 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all
> public attention although other issues, particularely access, are what
> most people in developing countries really care about. As long as they
> are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in
> Internet Governance.
> 
> I am sure there are lots of other reasons why people prefer not to
> discuss critical internet resources. But the two reasons mentioned above
> are in my view already important enough to take them seriously.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Parminder wrote:
> > Carrying on from my own email
> >
> >> The other two issues that took a great amount of the time, with most
> >> contributions for the technical and business community (on these
> issues,
> >> MAG
> >> members from these groups spoke most of the time, when as Anriette
> >> observed
> >> in her statement they should have focused more on listening), were
> >>
> >> (1) why the session on CIR should of a very different quality than
> other
> >> sessions
> >>
> >> (2) what are the problems with a recommendation giving power for IGF
> >>
> >> Both these issues are such on which a statement on behalf of the IGC
> could
> >> only be made on the after a good amount of online discussions, if so.
> >>
> >> So hoping for more life on the IGC list :)
> >>
> >> Parminder
> >
> > Meanwhile, I cannot understand why some groups spend so much energy on
> > trying to shape - or put out of any shape - a discussion session on
> CIRs....
> > So much was spoken during the consultations on how this session should
> be
> > treated in a manner different from other main sessions, and frankly, I
> could
> > not really understand even one argument well..... It may be my ignorance
> and
> > inaptitude but they seem to be putting some meaningless argument or
> other to
> > push this very illogical thing that a CIR main session should be
> different
> > (basically ineffectual).
> >
> > Quoting Vittorio's earlier comment on the discussion on IGC taking a
> > pro-active role to come up with IGF mandate and structure related
> proposals
> >
> >> finding a way to implement the mandate that is not threatening to the
> >> Internet community, and ensuring some clarity, >transparency and
> democracy
> >> in the internal procedures of the IGF.
> >
> > I Agree. And would like an examination of and a good discussion on what
> is
> > it exactly that threatens the Internet community. Lets discuss real
> issues,
> > perspectives and fears out in the open rather than using proxy
> arguments.
> > The Internet community and the business sectors strongly supported more
> > transparency during the open consultations... transparency starts with
> > stating upfront real issues/ concerns/ fears rather than masquerading
> them
> > in arguments that look quite untenable.
> >
> > The session that is most important to be held is - What is it that
> threatens
> > the Internet community or 'Who is afraid of the IGF' and why?
> >
> > Why so much energy invested in keeping a discussion on CIRs out, and now
> > when it is in, to shape/ distort the session towards ineffectuality.
> >
> > Why a simple annual IGF report, set of recommendations, a communiqué or
> any
> > such thing that fulfills the corresponding part of Tunis agenda for the
> IGF
> > look SO threatening? Even if it is a wrong thing to do, what are the
> REAL
> > fears? It is of IGF getting hamstrung to do other work it needs to do.
> But
> > then many (not all) who now oppose recommendation have not initially
> been
> > enthusiastic about the IGF as a public policy discussion space at all
> > (remember the last phase of the WSIS). So why such exaggerated fear of
> IGF
> > getting unable to do its basic work, and becoming ineffective. Or is the
> > fear that governments will capture recommendation-making activity. I
> don't
> > see how this can happen given the present structure of the IGF? (I may
> be
> > wrong on this, and, in that case, I will like someone to build the 'bad'
> > scenario for me)....Or does IGF not represent the only global space
> where
> > non-government actors can be equal partners in giving policy
> > recommendations.
> >
> > The structures and systems may need to evolve, and we may only be able
> to
> > agree on a very few things to start with, but why not try... Why kill
> the
> > first and the only multistakeholder global policy recommendation giving
> > body?
> >
> > Frank and open discussions alone help move things forward. One side may
> > realize some things which may be genuine to fear, and the other may find
> > that certain fears may not be so justified.
> >
> > It will be very useful to discuss this issue on this list itself, since
> > quite a diversity of views around this matter are represented here.
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> > ________________________________________________
> > Parminder Jeet Singh
> > IT for Change, Bangalore
> > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
> > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
> > www.ITforChange.net
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:38 PM
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> Subject: RE: [governance] IGF public consultation
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Jeanette
> >>
> >> I did send out an email on the 29th asking for any issues that members
> may
> >> want raised and myself presented some views in how things stood vis a
> vis
> >> preparation for Rio. I know it was kind of late but there has been too
> >> much
> >> silence on the IGC lately, a situation which despite some efforts by me
> >> and
> >> some others did not change much. For instance, we need discussions on
> the
> >> issue of the UN communiqué raising issues of rotation, transparency etc
> in
> >> IGF and MAG, and of giving the issue new consideration after Rio.
> Bertrand
> >> made the very useful suggestion on IGC taking a proactive stance on
> giving
> >> new definitions and recommendations etc...
> >>
> >> I think statements can only come if such discussions are taken
> forward...
> >>
> >> I also asked those members of IGC which were to be present on the 3rd
> in
> >> Geneva to discuss a possible meeting so that if necessary some kind of
> >> statement could be read out, after collectively determining that it is
> in
> >> consonance with the known views of IGC... but no one responded...
> >>
> >> On the other hand I think APC's input addressed the main issue very
> well -
> >> that of the revision/ reform of the MAG /IGF, including issues of
> rotation
> >> of members, nomination of new members by stakeholders themselves, and
> of
> >> the
> >> governmental co-chair.. And IT for Change and some others supported the
> >> statement. And also added the point of transparency of MAG and flow of
> >> information and gave some concrete suggestion.. I have a feeling that
> the
> >> suggestion for a meeting report of the closed sessions may be accepted
> >> since
> >> Nitin responded quite well to it. This will also specifically address
> the
> >> concern raised in the UN SG's communiqué.
> >>
> >> I think APC statement plus these other points could safely have been
> >> adopted
> >> as the caucus statement, but for this (1) we need some activity on the
> IGC
> >> prior to such meetings and (2) more liberty to those present to judge
> the
> >> 'perspectives of the IGC' and make a statement 'on their feet'. In this
> >> case, as an additional factor which worked against a pre-prepared
> >> statement,
> >> the agenda for the consultation was itself circulated too late (if I am
> >> right)...
> >>
> >> The other two issues that took a great amount of the time, with most
> >> contributions for the technical and business community (on these
> issues,
> >> MAG
> >> members from these groups spoke most of the time, when as Anriette
> >> observed
> >> in her statement they should have focused more on listening), were
> >>
> >> (1) why the session on CIR should of a very different quality than
> other
> >> sessions
> >>
> >> (2) what are the problems with a recommendation giving power for IGF
> >>
> >> Both these issues are such on which a statement on behalf of the IGC
> could
> >> only be made on the after a good amount of online discussions, if so.
> >>
> >> So hoping for more life on the IGC list :)
> >>
> >> Parminder
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________________________
> >> Parminder Jeet Singh
> >> IT for Change, Bangalore
> >> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> >> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
> >> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
> >> www.ITforChange.net
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:05 PM
> >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> Subject: [governance] IGF public consultation
> >>>
> >>> Hi, in case you didn't notice there was no caucus statement yesterday.
> >>> While the business sector had interventions on almost every issue on
> the
> >>> agenda, the caucus didn't have a single one. There were only
> >>> contributions by ICT for Change, APC, some other organizations and a
> few
> >>> individuals. This is a missed opportunity to influence the discussion
> on
> >>> the further institutionalization of the IGF. It also makes the role of
> >>> cs people in the advisory group more difficult. We have less papers
> and
> >>> interventions to refer to in the advisory group meeting than other
> >>> stakeholders.
> >>> jeanette
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> 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
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: 9/6/2007
> 8:36 AM
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 8:36 AM
 
____________________________________________________________
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