[governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight:

[Carlos Afonso]

Come on, Suresh, the "enemy" in this case is not that big! :)

--c.a.

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Parminder, 
> 
>  
> 
> I'm simply being realistic here.  Do we expend all the energy of this group
> tilting at a windmill that isn't going to budge all that fast?  And gets
> moved by a completely different set of winds (aka a different set of
> stakeholder communities that wield influence there)?
> 
>  
> 
> I'm an Indian, and you raised the question of the freedom struggle.  A whole
> lot of people tried to beat the british using armed force - petty rulers,
> people who shot a magistrate here, threw a bomb there etc .. did that help?
> It was only when the Indian equivalent of civil society organized together
> into a single party, with visible leaders and consensus (in this case, the
> Indian National Congress) and got into the very system the British operated
> to govern the country.
> 
>  
> 
> In other words, you wont be able to change this from outside, and won't be
> able to change this by operating within the IGF, or submitting petitions and
> releasing position papers.  You need to lobby DoC, and you need to lobby
> within ICANN.  Whatever change will take place in ICANN, whatever decisions
> on ICANN's governance get taken, will come from within ICANN and from within
> DoC  - you are not going to find it easy or possible to wrest control from
> DoC and reassign it to IGF.
> 
>  
> 
> ICANN is also, e&oe DoC oversight, a largely open and stakeholder driven
> process.  There, just like IGF and elsewhere, those stakeholders who have
> enough stake in ICANN to invest time, people and money to participate
> actively in it get their views pushed forward ahead of civ soc views.  It
> doesn't help that civ soc has pitifully inadequate representation there.
> 
>  
> 
> In other words, talking wont help.  Position papers, PhD theses etc wont
> help either.  And nor will all the discussion help if it goes on in the IGF.
> Taking this battle into ICANN and into lobbying DoC  is what is going to
> help.
> 
>  
> 
>                 suresh
> 
>  
> 
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:38 PM
> To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller';
> 'Jeremy Malcolm'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN
> Oversight: A Historic Opportunity
> 
>  
> 
> Suresh
> 
>  
> 
>> There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially with
> politically charged proposals
> 
>  
> 
> But before we explore what CAN happen, the issue is what are OUR political
> views on this matter. Which way WE want it to go. 
> 
>  
> 
>> DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe dream
> proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc
> 
>  
> 
> The prior issue still remains whether you/ we are a part of that
> 'pipe-dream' or not. Are you happy with DoC's oversight ? Lets state our
> political priorities upfront rather than put up the smokescreen of what may
> or may not 'practically' happen. (That's often the obvious viewpoint/
> strategy of those happy with the status quo.) And if we don't have any
> political views on this matter at all let that be stated too.
> 
>  
> 
> Civil society advocacy is having political views and fighting for them. do
> you think developed countries are going to increase development aid to close
> to 1 percent of their GDP, are they going to agree to development-friendly
> trade policy, will they allow public domain to proliferate in face of
> IP-fueled economic growth plans, would they accept disproportionate (fairly
> so) emission control norms for themselves........
> 
>  
> 
> So, why is civil society ever even bothering with these issue or pipe
> dreams.. You are an Indian, what would you have thought of all efforts of
> freedom fighters in early decades of the last century. pipe dreams?
> 
>  
> 
> So before we speak about what may happen lets know what do you/ we want..
> And if we just don't bother say that as well.
> 
>  
> 
> When you speak of 'extraordinarily vocal sections of civ soc' I do not know
> whom do you speak of and why would you want them to be less vocal. I thought
> IGC tries to provide space and possibilities for a greater voice for civil
> society. Or do you mean ONLY some sections of CS are 'extra-ordinarily'
> vocal, in that case which are these sections of the CS whose voice you think
> gets suppressed in the process, and which you may want to promote. 
> 
>  
> 
> So, in the context of the present thread of discussion, it is isn't enough
> to make the observation 'there isn't any IGF'. We need also to state if we
> really want any IGF as such, and if so what IGF. 
> 
>  
> 
> Parminder 
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:39 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy
> Malcolm'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN
> Oversight: A Historic Opportunity
> 
>  
> 
> There isn't any "IGF" as such - only some extraordinarily vocal sections of
> civ soc, some sections of government (which may be a bit different, in some
> cases, from the GAC regulars), some industry etc.  Yes there'd be a
> substantial cross section of these that are active in ICANN, but ..
> 
>  
> 
> 1.       There's no meaningful consensus likely to be achieved, especially
> with politically charged proposals
> 
> 2.       DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter what kind of pipe
> dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:03 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN
> Oversight: A Historic Opportunity
> 
>  
> 
> So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable to it.... and why
> ?????
> 
> This is a set of probing questions. And if Jeremy's observation be true,
> would it not signify a captured institution. I am not jumping to any
> conclusions (as yet) but drawing implications from some elements of this
> discussion, which probably will provoke more debate in this important area.
> 
>  
> 
> Parminder 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
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