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

[William Drake]

Hi,

On 2/9/08 6:32 AM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
 
> from http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/IGP-JPA-08-comments.pdf
 
> "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.

Right.  While I agree that the idea would be consistent with the TA mandate
language, that at first blush it might sound reasonable given the dearth of
alternative mechanisms of external accountability, and that soft oversight
does not mean hard hierarchy, I can't see how the politics line up to make
it viable.  Which of the following players could be expected to support
requiring ICANN to report to the IGF: 1) the USG, 2) the EU, 3) other OECD
governments, 4) business, including all the major Internet-related firms
that have not bothered to participate in WSIS/IGF, 5) the
technical/administrative nexus, 6) ICANN leadership, staff and
constituencies (unless the oversight is really, really soft) 6) IGF
leadership, 7) UN leadership (undoubtedly eager for more "UN power grab"
headlines, etc), 8) other international organizations concerned about the
possible precedent, etc...What are the incentives pro and con for each of
these players, what is the scenario under which consensus among them all
emerges?  I'm open to persuasion, but as with the framework convention idea,
it's hard to identify the conditions under which a winning coalition of
players content with the status quo wouldn't just view this as an unwelcome
Pandora's box and say no thanks, internal accountability to GAC and other
constituencies is sufficient.  And assuming the political support could be
lined up, then we have all the operational questions about how IGF as
currently configured could manage the process, how would this impact the IGF
process more generally, what does it mean to report to an anyone-can-come
conference rather than an organization with a defined membership and solid
legal foundation, what obligations would ICANN have to do xyz because a few
participants stood up and said we think abc and how would those be enforced,
etc.

Maybe IGP could write a second paper that puts some meat on the bones to
facilitate a more grounded discussion?

Best,

Bill


____________________________________________________________
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