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

[Parminder]

Avri

>I do not expect that the reason people might be against has to do with  
>laziness.

I agree. For many, it is a considered decision. And the fact that it is only
the view of some people and groups really, but has got expressed in the way
IGF/ MAG functions would be characterized in social and political theory as
'capture'. (I am very afraid to use such terms which are normal to be used
for any institution in socio-political theory because some people tend too
easily to read 'extremism' in my contributions.)


> only subordinate ICANN to  
the rest of the peers

Sure, I would like to be ICANN's peer. As it can make decisions that impact
me, I want to be able to make decisions that impact ICANN. Unfortunately I
am not able to do so. So, this goody goody language of peer-ship may not be
all that valid. We too easily avoid pulling in the factor of power
relationship in our analysis as if by ignoring it the factor would go away. 
 
> This would seem to me to be a radical change in  
>the nature of the forum.

Yes, a change from what some people have unilaterally decided what IGF
should be. In my earlier email in responding to Milton's I have sought to
draw member's attention towards numerous parts of TA whereby it looks IGF is
not what it is supposed to be. But even if try to discuss this, as we tried
to do in Rio, and as being proposed by the IGP proposal, we are told that we
are diverting positive energies and should be more forward looking.  

>Now, one could argue that the IGF should be a decision making body,  
>but most seem to believe that this is not what it was chartered to  
>be

Depending on whether we are happy with the status quo and how badly we want
things to change we can take a stock - this or that - view, or else take a
more nuanced view. Everything - an empowered MAG or not, recs or not, etc -
has been cast in a watertight this-or-that fashion, which, I beg to say, is
more divisive than the views of those who seek change. 

So, either IGF is a decision making body - against which I think the main
logic is that that would make it amenable to capture by the governments -
it - or it is just a meeting place. There is no in-between. So when
imaginative and constructive mid-way suggestions are offered - like a few we
tried to offer around Athens, and the present IGP proposal - it is not even
considered in view of the IGF-cannot-become-decision-making-body dogma. 

We should accept that this merely means that we are happy with the present
decision-making (meaning power exercising) bodies (in this case ICANN, USG
and such) and don't want to explore new ones. Others who seek seeking change
are not happy with the present power exercising bodies - on account of
legitimacy, capture by special interests etc -  and want to explore
different options. Methods of a soft spread of power, having multiple nodes
with greater connect to a larger constituency are some such option that are
being sought. The present IGP proposal of an arrangement between ICANN and
IGF is one of them.   

I did point to the fact of TA's injunction of annual performance reports for
ICANN and others, and that references to interfacing with ICANN etc and
assessing their adherence to WSIS principles are clearly indicated as a part
of the mandate of IGF. So, why would we not think of these points.. well, we
may not, and thats fine. As long as we accept that this itself is a matter
of political prioritization that we may do, and not a neutral
good-for-everyone take. 

> it is certainly not a step that the IGF seems ready for.  

One, I am not sure what it means. Two, the other issue still remains whether
or not we want IGF to take on such a role, and if so how are we contributing
to make IGF ready for it.


Parminder 


-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:47 AM
To: Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN
Oversight: A Historic Opportunity

<currently under temporary part-time contract to the IGF secretariat  
and an ICANN volunteer, but writing from my own perspective>

Hi,

I do not expect that the reason people might be against has to do with  
laziness. I think it might have to do with the nature of the IGF as a  
safe forum where everyone can meet to discuss the issues as peers,  
including ICANN.  The IGP proposal would not only subordinate ICANN to  
the rest of the peers, but would also force the group into becoming a  
decision making body.  This would seem to me to be a radical change in  
the nature of the forum.

Now, one could argue that the IGF should be a decision making body,  
but most seem to believe that this is not what it was chartered to  
be.  Also I expect that even if such were to be seen as a reasonable  
step in a possible evolution of the IGF, and I am _not_ thinking it  
is, it is certainly not a step that the IGF seems ready for.  At least  
it does not seem that way to me.

a.



On 6 Feb 2008, at 22:05, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
> Some perceptive comments, Parminder.
>
> > So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable
> > to it.... and why ?????
>
> The reason is that asking IGF to develop a process to review ICANN  
> is like asking me or you to do calisthenics or go running every  
> morning at 7 am. It is demanding work. It is far more comfortable to  
> sleep. The requested subject may know perfectly well that performing  
> this work is good for its health, and in fact may prolong its life  
> for many years. But it still may not welcome the effort.
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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