[governance] What this debate is really about

[McTim]

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Guru <guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
> McTim,
>
> "Well, since ICANN is a CS body IMO, then certainly Keiren would be
> representing CS views".
>
> I think this is the basic issue of disagreement. Not going into our views of
> ICANN functioning (which we know are quite different), let us  address the
> nature of ICANN, which is that of a governance institution and that too a
> global governance institution. ICANN approves gtlds, allocates ip addresses
> which are critical global resources. It collects charges on each domain name
> purchased (since there is no option to the user in making this payment if
> the user wants a domain name, it is actually in the nature of a tax),
> manages (or mismanages, depending on your pov :-) ) the DNS etc.
>
> A governance institution by very definition cannot be part of CS.

Now THIS is our sticking point.  I say it can, you disagree.

Didn't I give the example of my child's school board a few months ago?
they are a governance body, and fully CS too.


A
> governance body governs, has authority, takes decisions that affects others.
> CS is not in such a position of authority


It can be! I respectfully suggest that this is a very limited perspective.

, it responds, interfaces with
> governance institutions. (If Diplo Foundation is running any primer on
> political science, it may be useful for some of our friends to undergo :-)
> )

See down thread for learned political scietists who don't agree with
your view on this.

> It is possible that the functioning of a governance institution can be very
> democratic and participatory (butoc) but any claims that ICANN can be
> considered part of CS are as valid as accepting any democratic government
> claim to be CS.

See LSE defintion please.

 Will you accept to endorse a IT minister or bureaucrat of a
> country which is governed democratically as a CS nominee to MAG?

IF they were a member of this list, they could be by our charter.  The
2008 nomcom made a decsion that was contrary to our charter.  How, in
your view, can we stop future nomcoms from political machinations?


People who
> play certain roles in ICANN, say the CEO of ICANN, or its 'Manager for
> public participation' (Kieren) cannot be assumed to be able default to any
> CS positions and hence cannot be considered by IGC for CS candidature.
>

Please see above and my reply re: Bertrand.

> "It's just a part of CS that you don't agree
> with.  I have no doubt that Bertrand COULD represent both saying "the
> French government position is "x", while the IGC position is "y".  He
> could also "in his personal capacity" give his own views if they
> differ from either of the above."
>
> Mc Tim you are missing the point. The issue is not whether Bertrand COULD
> give views X or Y. For CS to nominate Bertrand, it needs to be reasonably
> sure that he will represent CS positions in any ms /mush discussions. It is
> reasonable for us to assume that Bertrand will not be able to default to CS
> positions as the GAC representative of French Government, rather than the
> other way around.

Then why didn't the nomcom exclude all those fulltime employees of
govt's who are members of the IGC?  If a nomcom thinks he couldn't do
the job, then don't nominate him, but don't discrimate against a class
of people based on who thier employer might be, when;

a) we haven't reached a definition "Internet technical community"

b) which orgs might be on that list, and who decides this

>
> {Else extending your logic, Paul Twoomey or the IT secretary of Nigeria can
> also 'give their personal opinions' (every human can give views in personal
> capacity), can IGC nominate either to MAG from CS list??}
>

By our charter, we COULD.  The 2008 nomcom didn't understand this.

> While we may all desire to move towards a world where all of us ('governed')
> also play a role in governance and IGF is perhaps an attempt in this
> direction, it is currently not reality.
>

But it is in what you call the IABs, at least in the one where I was a
fulltime employee, and the ones whose processes I participate in now.
These "Internet administrative bodies" are MUCH more CS than this
caucus, in that the kind of thing we are talking about now doesn't
currently happen in their open, transparent processes.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
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