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

[Milton L Mueller]

Avri I think you misunderstand the proposal. And I think your
misunderstanding is fueled largely by the incredible defensiveness that
seems to have developed around ICANN and the alleged "threat" posed to
it by internationalization. 

How exactly would a non-binding review and report on ICANN's
accountability, administered by the IGF, "subordinate" ICANN to the IGF?
If anything, this proposal could be criticized as being far too soft on
ICANN. 

ICANN apparently _wants_ IGF to review it as it played an extremely
active role in the Rio Forum and invited comment and criticism. 

In terms of becoming a "decision-making body" again I think this is a
massive overstatement. Parminder has demonstrated conclusively that
IGF's mandate includes reviewing and assessing the accountability of
Internet governance insitutions. But IGF has no binding authority or
leverage (comparable to ICANN's control of the root zone, for example)
with which to enforce its recommendations. So in what sense does it
become decision-making. 

If IGF is nothing more than a completely non-threatening space where
people talk, tell me what it does that isn't done better by the complex
of academic and industry conferences that come along by the dozens each
year? 

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:44 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; avri at psg.com
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: 
> Reforming ICANN
> 
> Avri,
> 
> I don't think we are talking about a radical change in IGF, more of a
> recognition of what de facto is already happening.
> 
> ICANN is not subordinated to anyone. ICANN has voluntarily 
> participated
> in IGF from its founding, and organized sessions.
> 
> At those sessions, people have made positive and negative 
> comments, and
> offered on-target and perhaps also off-target feedback to ICANN.
> 
> So we're just saying look at what's going on already at IGF, project
> ahead to where this is leading, and isn't that preferrable to keeping
> ICANN on a JPA leash indefinitely.  
> 
> Lee
> 
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> >>> avri at psg.com 02/06/08 5:16 PM >>>
> <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
> 
____________________________________________________________
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