[Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of IG

[William Drake]

Hi Parminder

On Apr 22, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Parminder wrote:

>
>
> William Drake wrote:
>> Hi Parminder
>>
>>> and therefore not acceptable, about which there is a strong  
>>> sentiment that is propelling the internationalisation debate, we  
>>> will need to come up with institutional alternatives. Our desire  
>>> to look for them depends on the strength of our belief and  
>>> conviction in the above regard. But if I do have to suggest  some  
>>> models, models 1, 3 and 4 suggested by WGIG are not a bad place to  
>>> start from.
>>
>> The IGC rejected all of these during WSIS...but I guess this  
>> indicates what the intended scope is.  You're proposing the ws be  
>> about ICANN 'oversight' then?
>>
> Hi Bill
>
> All the three models mentioned above  that were put forward by WGIG   
> report  centrally include  non -ICANN and non -CIR policy issues.  
> They all refer to wider Internet related public policies. So why do  
> you conclude from my example of possible consideration of such  
> models among others that I am proposing a workshop about ICANN  
> 'oversight' alone. Though, yes, this is one important issue, as is  
> in all the three models mentioned here.

Yes, in principle they weren't necessarily restricted in scope, which  
reflected in no small measure the efforts of the IGC and others to  
push the notion of IG beyond ICANN and CIR.  But in practice, the  
governmentals who proposed these models really were fundamentally  
thinking about ICANN.  Model 1's "Global Internet Council" was "to  
replace the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee;" model 3's  
"International Internet Council" was to "fulfill the corresponding  
functions, especially in relation to ICANN/IANA competencies," to  
address "international public policy issues that do not fall within  
the scope of other existing intergovernmental organizations" (meaning  
CIR), and "could make the Governmental Advisory Committee redundant;"  
and model 4's World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and  
Numbers was to exercise an "oversight function over the body  
responsible, at the global level, for the technical and operational  
functioning of Internet (ICANN)" and replace GAC.  It was pretty clear  
to everyone what we were talking about.  So when you suggest we need  
to look at these, and have a workshop proposal that says "present  
governance structures grew out of certain historical contexts" and  
need "democratic internationalization," it seemed reasonable to  
conclude you were talking about ICANN.  If you meant more than that I  
stand corrected, but  I the ws description and discussion here seemed  
to suggest otherwise.

So which other governance structures was the language alluding to?   
It'd be helpful to know, since the IGC will need to agree what the  
session's about if it's approved.
>
>
> >And re: the above, I don't think CS calls for change/evolution  
> necessarily are grounded in the assertion that the (unnamed) present  
> arrangements  are not >democratic enough. There are a lot of other  
> bases upon which to critique and call for reforms.
>
> Which ones are these 'other bases'? The only real problem for me  
> with a political governance structure can be that either it is not  
> democratic or not effective. Without a clear democratic  
> underpinning, concepts like transparency, accountability  are  
> meaningless,  mostly  even deluding. And when democratic  
> underpinning of a system itself is in question that 'basis' of  
> reform comes first, before all these other dependent 'bases'.

One can argue for global public interest objectives and criteria  
without framing them in terms of "democratization," and indeed the  
caucus has long done so.  We've argued for balancing inter-national  
interests, business/public interests, transparency, accountability,  
inclusive MS participation, and so on without such grounding.  None of  
which is incompatible with your conception of the term, it's just that  
there's no necessarily intrinsic equation of the terms.

Ok, need to listen to the Russian minister...

Best,

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