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

[William Drake]

Hi Milton,

Thanks, this is useful in understanding your thinking.

On 2/9/08 6:15 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 
>> -----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.

Maybe.  But I'd be mighty surprised if even Obama's people were prepared to
recommend something that could be so readily misconstrued as "replacing US
sovereign authority with (soft) UN oversight."  Which influential voices in
DC are likely to want to make that case, especially after K St. et al get
started with the 'black helicopters over Marina Del Rey' press releases.
 
>> 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.

Sure, but not liking the GAC model is not the same as thinking the IGF
conference could or should expand its mission in this manner.
 
>> 3) other OECD
>> governments,
> 
> I can think of several who might like it, but decline to name them for
> strategic reasons

Well, maybe one, but others...
 
>> 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.

Here I'm more skeptical than you, unless the oversight is so soft as to be
meaningless.  
 
>> 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.

Not sure you can restrict their choice set to this binary by assumption.

>> 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.

It seems different and more easily viewed as threatening to the IGF than a
90 minute panel loaded with ICANN proponents.
 
>> 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.

Not major, but not supportive either, which can echo through missions etc.

Anyway, thanks, we'll see if it gets traction.

Cheers,

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