[governance] What this debate is really about

[Karl Auerbach]

Lee McKnight wrote:

> 'Civil society' will not merge with ICANN. But ICANN as an institution
> can evolve toward or away from civil society. I prefer toward.  

Do we really want institutions of internet governance that can so 
fluidly evolve?

Or is it more appropriate that such institutions be clearly defined and 
strongly walled into that definition?

Is not the art of building institutions of governance more than merely 
the art of finding ways to solve problems?  Is it not also the art of 
constructing those solutions so that the solutions can not easily become 
cancers?

ICANN, to use your example, was intended for a very narrow technical 
function - assuring technical stability of DNS/IP addresses.  That we so 
easily accept that ICANN may, and has, slopped well beyond that intent 
is indicative of what I believe is a dangerous tendency to quietly 
accede when bodies of governance, internet or otherwise, expand their scope.

Were ICANN to constrain itself to the narrow field it was originally 
intended to occupy then questions whether it is aligned with or opposed 
to free speech, or other such matters, would rarely, if ever, arise.

We need bodies of internet governance that address many specific issues.
Many of those issues pertain to technical matters - for instance the 
establishment of a clearing house for end-to-end quality-of-service 
assurances (not guarantees).  Only of few of the remaining issues 
necessarily affect fundamental human rights.

Those bodies, such as ICANN, that have no need to affect those rights 
ought to be kept small and confined so that they can have no such effects.

And for those relatively few governance bodies that will need to make 
decisions affecting fundamental rights, it is very important that those 
most directly involved - the humans who have those rights - have not 
only a clear voice in the choices that are made, but a clear ability to 
compel those choices without falling prey to those pre-selected special 
interests who bear that title of internet neo-nobility called "stakeholder".

If we discover at some future date that what we thought at first was a 
merely technical matter is really a matter with broader import, then it 
becomes appropriate to reconsider, reform, or even replace, the means of 
governance of that matter.

		--karl--
____________________________________________________________
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