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

[Milton L Mueller]

Ah, the usual suspects offering the usual rationalizations. I am not
sure how seriously anyone takes these comments from Suresh and McTim,
but will try to do them justice and respond as if I were dealing with
open-minded individuals

> -----Original Message-----
> > There isn't any "IGF" as such

This is the same argument that was made against IETF by the
inter-governmentalists back around 1995-6-7. At this point, we are well
beyond this line of argumentation. No serious participant in Internet
governance, not even ICANN, ISOC, or the US government, has any doubts
about the existence of the IGF or its status. All participate actively
in IGF and some donate money to it. The IGF is the outcome of an
internationally negotiated, politically binding agreement, and is a
recognized entity within the UN system.

> This is a good point, is there an organisation registered anywhere? Is
> it a UN body like the ITU (I assume the ITU has some kind of articles
> of incorporation). Does the IGF have an of this kind of documentation?
> Is it an .int? an NGO? offices? a phone number? letterhead? tax
> numbers? anything?

All these cavils about organizational status become pretty pathetic when
one realizes that the IETF (unlike the IGF) lacks any of them. 

> 1. There's no meaningful consensus likely to be 
> achieved, especially with politically charged proposals

I understand that this is meant to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any
argument that an IGF process is unlikely to produce "consensus" could
just as easily be applied to ICANN and its attempt to develop policy,
could it not? 

If there is no consensus, there is no consensus. If there is, there is.
Whether agreement happens or not depends on the issue being considered.
In this case, if ICANN went to either extreme -- and was either
extraordinarily satisfying to most involved groups or extraordiarily
abusive -- there could be widespread agreement. 

> 2. DoC isn't going to give up oversight, no matter 
> what kind of pipe dream proposals emanate from IGF, IGP etc

Flat wrong. We are talking about the Joint Project Agreement. This is a
form of oversight less important than the IANA contract, but it is still
a form of overisight. The USG has made it clear that it can and will
terminate the JPA when the conditions are right. 

____________________________________________________________
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