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

Wed Feb 6 23:05:18 EST 2008

Suresh

>That ICANN seeks out people of a technical persuasion is mostly self
selection.  If civil society goes in, and provides reasoned, cogent - and
apolitical - >arguments, there's no reason why these cant be taken forward. 

I think we could be closing in to understand our differences, though without
resolving them. You said at ICANN one needs to make apolitical arguments !!
But I and my organization are very clear that we are into political work. I
wish mostly to make political arguments. And you do say that such arguments
will not be given attention in ICANN forums. And, well, about 'reasoned and
cogent argument' I m not sure who will judge my comments for these
qualities, and using what parameters. 

Now, we must understand that our interest is in the political aspects of
ICANN functioning, not its narrowly technical aspects. To the extent that
ICANN seeks larger political base - legitimacy of representing the interests
of a larger set of constituencies - its outreach is (or is supposed to be) a
political matter. On the other hand, it can also be seeking a larger
outreach of technical advice and inputs in which case the outreach is more
of an IETF kind of loose networking. 

It will do both sides - the political and the technical - a lot of good if
they understand and appreciate the difference well. As much as IETF will
like to keep its deliberation 'apolitical' and consisting of reasoned and
cogent arguments as per the normal expectations of a scientific/ technical
community, IGF, and I dare say IGC (as an self-professed advocacy group)
will like to keep the primacy of the socio-political over technical in its
functioning. Such specialization helps both sides - even if the distinction
is to a good extent conceptual. Those who are technical people are as much
entitled to political views as anyone else - but only as much, even if the
area has more technical content than other areas - and it will be very
useful if they can appreciate the difference between giving a political
input and a technical one.

Some people naively confuse the two - and other people, and organizations -
when it serves their political interest - do it deliberately. ICANN must
separate the two aspects of its functioning - till such time the political/
public policy part is taken away from it by putting it under the oversight
of an appropriate global public policy body or system. The latter is
something ICANN resists tooth and nail, on the other hand, it wont itself
accept the largely political nature of its outreach and stakeholder
involvement activity and make due processes for it.

And so if CS and people do not 'speak the same language' as ICAAN does, in
the task of political legitimization that ICANN seeks it is the job of the
ICANN to present issues in people's and CS's language and not the other way
around. As I said the technical deliberations are a different ballgame.  I
know that some amount of technical overview knowledge is still required, and
be assured that we how seek political participation do have that. 

> disconnect, this gap, that needs to be bridged first.

Now, if we are able to develop a common understanding of the nature of the
'gap' we can try to do something to bridge it. The offer of IGF as the ideal
forum for ICANN for political outreach, stakeholder involvement and seeking
wider legitimacy has been made precisely for that purpose. Political
outreach, and I know I am repeating this, is not made on the terms of the
institution that seeks political involvement, but on the terms of wider
constituencies whose involvement is sought. These are simple political
lessons. 

Parminder 

  _____  

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 8:38 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

McTim's point about the IGF and handing over control to it should be very
well taken in that case.  GAC's increased involvement certainly didn't
originate within ICANN - it originated in the governments that form GAC.

There is no shortage of ways civ soc can go into ICANN .. industry led
because industry seems to be the single largest participating constituency
in ICANN.  There is a lot that civil society can, and must, do within ICANN
too.

That ICANN seeks out people of a technical persuasion is mostly self
selection.  If civil society goes in, and provides reasoned, cogent - and
apolitical - arguments, there's no reason why these cant be taken forward.
The problem so far is that not all civil society people understand ICANN, or
the issues that ICANN governs - or at least, may not speak the same
language.

It is this disconnect, this gap, that needs to be bridged first.

                suresh

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 3:56 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; 'Milton L Mueller';
'Jeremy Malcolm'
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN
Oversight: A Historic Opportunity

Suresh

I think we broadly agree the present DoC supervision is something that
should not carry on, and we should try to do some thing to change the
situation.  The difference of view is about where this battle should be
waged.

>You need to lobby DoC, and you need to lobby within ICANN. 

The present effort under discussion is aimed at the DoC. So it is as per
what you advise. And when you ask DoC to give up supervision it is always
wise to also say give it up to whom or what. and next to a ICANN floating
free from any political accountability (which is not acceptable to us) the
soft oversight by IGF looks like an constructive suggestion. 

As for lobbying within ICANN, a couple of issues.

You may not be right to say that whatever changes in or about ICANN will
come from within ICANN. You are under-estimating the amount of increase of
power of GAC in ICANN, for instance, and where from these 'changes' arose,
what factors caused them. They aren't from within ICANN. Though ICANN has
gone down the path of some reforms lately (also often triggered, if
indirectly, by forces outside it) if one seeks structural changes in ICANN
one cant just rely on persuasive forces aimed at structures of ICANN itself.

Now to explain briefly why do we seek structural and not merely evolutionary
changes. The new CEO rightly described ICANN during the Rio meeting as an
industry-led governance system. Well, I don't like industry based governance
systems. Not for a phenomenon that is increasingly getting under the skin of
almost every social institution, and structurally transforming them. For me
it is a close equivalent to a pharma-industry led global health policy
systems. 

ICANN likes to tell everyone that it does only technical coordination
function. Now, if it does only that I have no interest in participating and
influencing its function. But all the political contestations around it
prove that its functions have great - present or future - political
implications. So, I cant participate in the so called stakeholder out-reach
systems of an organization that says that it does only technical functions
and correspondingly its outreach systems also mostly seek out people of
technical persuasions (the connection, to that extent, is obvious and fair).

Internet is a big social phenomenon with stakeholders in all sectors, and
they should be equally enabled to participate - ICANN system does not reach
out to them. It has constructed a somewhat dubious category of Internet
users which too it not what it is able to reach out to.  And it is very
comfortable to reach out a largely technical community, which does not
challenge its structural basis, and have issues with it that are relatively
peripheral and contestations stays in these areas.

Do you think the largely technical community that interacts through ICANN
build stakeholder structures represent the width of the social
constituencies that are implicated in IG today - which is basically all
people of the world. Can you point to anyone who is not directly or
indirectly implicated by the structural changes caused by the Internet -
which changes themselves depend on how the basic internet platform develops?
What are the structures of participation of these people?

And in this context, that I have drawn above, where is the legitimacy of an
continued industry-led governance system - I have deep ideological problems
with this neo-liberalization of every social system, governance in this case
-  or even a technical community dominated governance system, whose
viewpoints are valid, but represent a very small portion of the range of
stakeholders implicated. 

A group of technical community members in their recent proposal
(http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0) for MAG renewal give a
useful guideline ""AG members should be chosen on the basis of how large and
diverse a community they connect to (which is different than "represent")."
One can try and analyze how big and diverse communities do the present ICANN
out-reach / participation structures connect to.  I don't see ICANN score
well at all on this. 

I don't think I would have persuaded you to my viewpoint, but you may
perhaps understand a little better. It is not as simple as you say, in
response to Jeanette's email

>when there is an existing structure and an existing path to change / alter
governance processes, trying to create a >whole new path isnt going to be
productive.

Parminder 

  _____  

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:18 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

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 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080207/b20a3135/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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