[governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> Milton, if you really believe in this, then you should conclude that
no
> person working for or holding positions in a RIR, ICANN, ITU etc.
should
> be allowed to participate in the IGF...

Absolutely not, see below. Their participation is vital. We simply have
to recognize, as the tame language of the Nomcom committee report did,
that there is a "potential conflict of interest." 

> The IGF AG is just an organizing committee, it is not tasked with
> "judging the criticisms, assessments or policies" to be applied to IG
> organizations. 

The AG is, for better or worse, an agenda-setting committee. It
determines what topics are highlighted and considered at the Forum and
how prominent they are -- and who gets to speak about them. It is wrong
to say that the AG just organizes logistics, and you know that, VB. (If
it is just an "organizing committee" then why should anyone complain
about being limited or excluded from it?) 

Unfortunately, as we know all too well from its first two meetings,
there are people associated with some governance organizations who
deliberately attempt to foreclose discussion of topics that might make
them uncomfortable. Not all of them, but some. Some people in the RIRs
and ICANN, in contrast are quite reasonable and open. 

So we simply have to be aware of that and not pretend that a committee
stacked with -- for example -- ICANN staff and Board, domain name
registries under contract to ICANN, etc., is going to be an impartial
judge of what kind of issues should be discussed about ICANN. 

As I said before, this is just common sense, and the harder certain
people associated with I* organizations come down against such a simple
and obvious point the more they indicate to the rest of us that their
intention is indeed one of protecting themselves and their buddies from
scrutiny. 

> I too was disappointed by seeing that the first IGF AG
> was stuffed with a bit too many people strongly connected to ICANN,
but
> that doesn't mean that the right solution is to rule them out
entirely.

Then you have conceded the main thrust of my point. And who said
anything about "ruling them out entirely?" Really, the level of
discourse on this list is just getting silly. Remember, this whole
discussion was prompted by some language in the noncom report that said
that wsuch people might have a "potential conflict of interest." 

> I don't see how a University or an NGO getting grants to
> study IG is different from a RIR getting money to assign IP address
> blocks.

Vittorio, if you can't see that difference you are blind. The authority
to assign IP address blocks is an exclusive and globally applicable
governance function that must be publicly accountable. This is like
saying there is no difference between the national telecom regulator and
a neighborhood advocacy group that forms to influence it. 

____________________________________________________________
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