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

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> 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.

The politics are not a cakewalk, but a much stronger alignment than you
suggest.

> Which of the following players could be expected to support
> requiring ICANN to report to the IGF: 

> 1) the USG, 

Probably not, but two things to take into account: a change in
administration is possible, and if ICANN is released from its MoU the
wishes of the USG would have very little to say about whether ICANN
agrees to be reviewed or not. Indeed, one possible scenario is that the
US supports a more independent ICANN but the rest of the world does not,
so if the US unilaterally ends the MoU the rest of the world may want to
support new forms of ovesight, but realize that it will not get
traditional intergovernmental oversight may turn to the IGF.

> 2) the EU,

I see no fundamental clash between this proposal and what I understand
to be the position of the EU on Internet governance matters. In fact, EU
is known to not like the GAC model.

> 3) other OECD
> governments,

I can think of several who might like it, but decline to name them for
strategic reasons

> 4) business, including all the major Internet-related firms
> that have not bothered to participate in WSIS/IGF, 5) the
> technical/administrative nexus, 

I.e., you mean ISOC and ICC, which is often pretty much the same thing.
Probably not sympathetic to the idea initially, but not adamantly
hostile to it, either. Business is not monolithic on this issue. A lot
of the US-based multinationals and IPR interests want to retain a strong
role for Washington. Others don't, and an IGF role might be perceived as
a better alternative. 

> 6) ICANN leadership, staff and

Obviously, icann management would prefer NO oversight but are unlikely
to get it. So put the choice to them clearly: do you want US DoC
oversight or IGF oversight? I have some reasons to believe that they
would prefer IGF soft oversight.

> 6) IGF leadership, 7) UN leadership (undoubtedly eager for more "UN
power > grab" headlines, etc), 

In general, I would see IGF leadership's attitude toward this as being
driven by the actors who participate in its consultations and forums.
Leadership was afraid to include CIR in its agenda the first year but
got pushed to do it the second year. The sky didn't fall, it was in fact
healthy. Same goes for this issue. 

> 8) other international organizations concerned about the
> possible precedent, etc.

Can't see this playing a major role. For most of them -- including ITU
-- Internet governance is not at the center of what they do. 

____________________________________________________________
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