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

[Carlos Afonso]

Avri, besides the interesting response, I like the xml-like format!

:)

frt rgds

--c.a.

Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> On 7 Feb 2008, at 18:40, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
>>
>> Avri I think you misunderstand the proposal.
> 
> For you to say i misunderstand what you say is fine.  i think that may 
> even be a mantra between us.
> 
>> And I think your
>> misunderstanding is fueled largely by the incredible defensiveness that
> 
> for you to say my misunderstanding is fueled by defensiveness is offensive
> (
>     meaning the opposite of defensive,
>     and not meaning that you have offended me.
>     whenever someone calls another defensive,
>     they are on the attack
>     what can we say in response?
>     - oh no, i am not defensive.
>     - gee, that sounds defensive to me
> )
> 
>>
>> seems to have developed around ICANN and the alleged "threat" posed to
>> it by internationalization.
> 
> 
> As I think you know, i have personally advocated internationalization 
> for a long time, though i admit i am adverse to any sort of 
> inter-governmentalism.
> 
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
> 
> In your letter you argue that ICANN is not ready to be independent.
> 
> quote
>      IGP, like many other stakeholders,
>      does not believe that ICANN is ready to be fully
>      independent yet.
> end quote
> 
> furthermore  you state that it needs to be accountable to someone, a 
> point to which i agree.
> 
> quote
>       The problem is more fundamental and systemic.
>       It can be summed
>       up in two words: external accountability.
> end quote
> 
> you go on to define what you mean by External accountability:
> 
> quote
>     External accountability refers to the ability of members
>    the Internet-using public to  effectively sanction the
>    organization
> unquote
> 
> I can even agree with this.  i can even agree that some sort of external 
> international oversight is required.  but I argue that anyone who can 
> sanction another puts the other into a subordinate position.  By any 
> definition I understand, oversight, involves a power relationship and 
> thus subordinates one entity to the other.
> 
> As I understand the IGF, one goal is to do all we can to balance the 
> power relationships in IG.  I accept Parminder's arguments that it is a 
> 'goody goody' viewpoint to think that the power relationships have all 
> been eliminated in the IGF.  But i believe strongly that this is a goal 
> - and that while we are under the umbrella of the IGF we must strive for 
> parity and equality of participants and organizations. (You can call me 
> a naive dreamer and optimist if you like)
> 
> I believe that any arrangement that mandates that ICANN report and 
> respond to the IGF, puts the IGF in a position that is contrary to its 
> intended nature.  So while I agree that ICANN may need to report to 
> someone I do not see how the IGF could accept such a responsibility and 
> remain the IGF as defined by the TA and its initial meetings.
> 
> Before I get criticized for not offering anything other then 
> disagreement,  for information sake, i tend to favor a  model that 
> includes an independent appeals mechanism, and some form of the no 
> confidence vote model.  I have not bothered to write this to NTIA, 
> because I don't expect them to care one whit what i may have to say.
> 
> 
>> ICANN apparently _wants_ IGF to review it as it played an extremely
>> active role in the Rio Forum and invited comment and criticism.
> 
> I can't speak for ICANN, or anyone else for that matter, but they do 
> seem very open to the opinions and criticism of IGF participants and 
> others. I think that this is the soft power that people speak of - the 
> soft power of people using reason and being able to help an organization 
> see itself from external viewpoints.  i would hope that any participant 
> in the IGF, not just ICANN, would be able to improve [it, him, her]self 
> based on the multiple perspectives available in the the IGF.
> 
>>
>>
>> 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.
> 
> I believe Parminder has confounded two separate mandates; the IGF 
> mandate and the enhanced cooperation mandate.  I therefore do not find 
> his argument convincing.  Though I can easily see how it might be 
> compelling to some.  I think the enhanced cooperation formula is much 
> more complicated then that.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I believe that putting it in the position to sanction would involve 
> 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?
> 
> Because academic conferences only have an academic scope and industry 
> conferences only have a private sector scope, whereas the IGF has a 
> global multistakeholder scope.  and because the IGF is the first to have 
> a scope that brings together civil society, international organizations, 
> the private sector, IGOs, the academy, techies and governments into a 
> single non-threatening space.  I see that as something precious that 
> should not be overloaded with other functions.
> 
> 
> a.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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