[governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest

[Milton L Mueller]

________________________________

From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info] 

2. In my view - RIRs should be included as a full member in our IGC
discussions.

Robert, 

I think you have missed the target in this increasingly tiresome
discussion. No one - not me, not Parminder, not anyone else - has ever
proposed to exclude RIR representatives from our discussions. Indeed, I
have urged people here to get involved in RIR policy discussion lists,
and vice-versa. No one disputes that RIRs play an important role in
global IG, either. As has been said repeatedly, the real issue is: who
represents us on the MAG - "us" being the IGC - when we discuss RIR
policy in the context of the IGF? Do you want an RIR staff person or an
independent voice? Same goes for ICANN, ITU, WIPO, etc. Is there not a
problem if our "representative" in discussions of ICANN is someone who
works for ICANN? No one has ever said that ICANN or an RIR should not be
able to participate in the broader discussions of their role in global
internet governance. The issue is who represents _us_ in that
discussion.  

As I said earlier, 

RIR's membership is predominantly, though not exclusively, composed of
commercial hosting companies and ISPs -- the most common consumers of IP
address blocks. But there are also govt agencies and CS groups. RIRs are
better thought of as multi-stakeholder regulatory organizations, not as
CS, business or govt. Within the framework of IGF and the Tunis Agenda,
they fit squarely in the category of "international organizations" along
with ICANN. So of course RIRs and ICANN, like other international
governance organizations such as OECD or ITU, will be and absolutely
should be represented in the MAG and in panels, etc. -- as IOs. 

As governance entities RIRs are accountable to _their own members_ not
to us (IGC). As governors, RIR leaders should be accountable to and
listen to what the different sectors of society have to say about IG
policy. They are welcome on our list, they are welcome in our dialogue.
But they are not our representatives. They are representatives of their
own memberships. I don't see how anyone can deny this simple
observation. IG organizations should not have a dual, contradictory
role. And since RIRs are extremely well-resourced organizations that are
well-represented in every conceivable IG Forum, it is hard to understand
this manufactured complaint about their somehow being excluded and
powerless in these dialogues. It is getting a bit silly, is it not? 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080602/88e764cd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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