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

[Lee McKnight]

Following on from Milton, our modest proposal is just to recognize the implications of the fact that ICANN is already annually reporting to IGF, and already receiving feedback, and de facto, has implictly chosen to consider itself accountable to the broader Internet community through this very soft mechanism.

I fail to see how there is anything top down or hierarchical about the multistakeholder Internet Governance Forum, whether or not a report is written following a workshop, and recommendations are made. In fact I bet people have done that already following workshops these past 2 years, and noone criticized that they were engaging in some form of draconian oversight for having done so.

IGF will grow up some, as ICANN has, and we're just saying let's look ahead to that future. based on the trajectory we can already see by ICANN choosing to participate, and people commenting. 

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> mueller at syr.edu 02/08/08 3:02 PM >>>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang 
> 
> My understanding of "bottom up" is that there is no 
> sub-ordination, there is no "master on the top" who tells, 
> oversees, controls etc. It is a qualitative new relationship 
> among different groups who has to sit togetbner and to figure 
> out both within their own groups and among themselves how to 
> manage concrete problems on an issue by issue basis. The 
> traditional "triangel" where we had governments on the top, 
> private sector was lobbying (or buying) governments and civil 
> society was protesting in the streets (peacefully or with 

Wolfgang:
this is all very well and good, but somewhat orthogonal to the discussion about IG Forum-based "oversight" of icann. What seems to have happened here is that you and Avri (and now, Roney Koven) have interpreted the words "soft oversight" to mean "hierarchy", contrary to the meaning of English words and the actual facts about what was proposed, and now use your self-imposed equation as an occasion to rail against hierarchy. But it is clear, it is undeniable, that IGF has no hierarchical authority over ICANN (or anything else). Manifestly, IGF holds no political or contractual authority to tell it what to do or enforce any "orders". So what, exactly, are you talking about?

Indeed, the proposal we are making is an attempt to actually implement and facilitate some of the network governance ideas that you are trying to articulate. So to take your words, we are proposing that the "different groups" "sit together and figure out both within their own groups and among themselves" how to manage the concrete problem of ICANN's accountability.  

Similarly, others have advocated using the Forum to scrutinize other international organizations involved in IG, such as the ITU, for their conformance to WSIS principles. Oddly, we get no protests about a looming imposition of hierarchy when the ITU is brought up (we usually get a well-deserved yawn). I'll leave it to others to speculate on the causes of that disparity.  

____________________________________________________________
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