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

[McTim]

On Feb 8, 2008 11:02 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> > -----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)

You seem to have left out a few other "usual suspects" ;-)

MM:
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?

Maybe this?:

"5. Last but not least, ICANN and the UN Internet Governance Forum
should agree to conduct a bi-annual review and public consultation
concerning ICANN's record and accountability."

from http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/IGP-JPA-08-comments.pdf

or this:

"We suggest, therefore, that a new external oversight arrangement for
ICANN be set up by leveraging the innovation and experimentation of
the Internet Governance Forum. The IGF is an appropriately neutral,
nongovernmental platform for discussion, consideration of evidence and
the development of non-binding reports and recommendations. The IGF
was given an open-ended mandate to explore emerging issues of Internet
governance in a different way than traditional intergovernmental
bodies."

Para 71 of the TA says, inter alia:

"The same relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual
performance reports."

I assumer this means ICANN AND the ITU.  ICANN is cooperating, is the
ITU reporting as fully?  In any case TA says "requested", while your
proposal says, inter alia: "All that is required is that ICANN be
mandated to report".

AFAIAC, requested is much softer than mandated, hence methinks your
proposal is outside the scope of the TAs description of the IGF.

>
> 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.

One, other, I think, but if IGP would like to tilt at that particular
windmill, I will support it 100%.  So, #5 above could read:

"Last but not least, ITU and the UN Internet Governance Forum should
agree to conduct a bi-annual review and public consultation concerning
ITU's record and accountability."

Run that up the flagpole at the next IGF, and see who salutes. I would
venture to say very few gov't reps would.

AFAIK, ICAN is much more multi-stakeholder, bottom -up and
"democratic" than the ITU.  Why not focus on the ITU and bring it up
to ICANN "spec" before trying to move ICANN?

>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.

Perhaps because folk believe it's such a non-starter?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
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