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

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> 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.

Then we agree partly, at a basic principle level. IGP folks just tend to
think that ultimately you have to get governments to agree to be limited
-- you cannot adopt an "ignore it and it will go away" approach to state
power in the modern world. 

> > 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.

Avri, you engage in some very fragmented and selective quotation of our
position. See response below

> 
> 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.

Our main accountability reforms, the ones that provide harder
"sanctions," would come from the no-confidence report, the GNSO reforms,
improvement of the review panel, and support for Board staff. The IGF
would provide a vehicle for discussing, publicizing and bringing
attention to problems, which is all it has the authority to do. Thus, in
effect, you have clearly failed to answer my very simple and direct
question: how can IGF "subordinate" ICANN by doing this? Try to answer
this question at a factual level, not a rhetorical one.

> 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 can call you a dreamer.....
but you are not the only one. 
Perhaps some day you will join us. 
And the world, will be as One...
Ahem. Song over. Nothing you say above is inconsistent with what we
propose.

> 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.  

Disagree. ICANN already reports and responds to IGF, we are simply
asking that the process be formalized and that ICANN formally agree to
go through it. 

____________________________________________________________
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