[Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of

[Parminder]

Hi Bill
>>
>>
>> William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi Parminder
>>>
>> 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.  
If IGC was indeed pushing for non CIR issues to be in global political 
IG models, than there is no reasons for anyone to think that I would be 
thinking otherwise in suggesting that inter alia these models may also 
be revisited.

> But in practice, the governmentals who proposed these models really 
> were fundamentally thinking about ICANN.  
Doesnt matter. I am not in those governments who were doing this. We 
cannot allow those governments to determine the whole agenda and merely 
be reactive to them.

> 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.
But you said above that IGC, and presumable others, were also talking 
about non CIR issues. We all know what were the hot and the contested 
issue, but that does not take away other important governance requirements.

> 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.
The workshop proposal clearly say that Internet is no longer just a 
technical artifact but much more, which suggests that we are also 
speaking about things beyond technical governance, and therefore beyond 
CIR.

>
> So which other governance structures was the language alluding to?  
The real problem here I think is that we seem to see 'political 
oversight' of ICANN-plus in a vacuum. In fact such oversight in not only 
connected with but actually arises out of other political IG issues - 
IPR/ public domain, cultural diversity, FoE, security, development needs 
etc . So 'oversight' and other global Internet policy issues, to a good 
extent, need to be seen in one bunch.   The only *legitimate* reason 
that someone with 'political oversight' over CIR management has for 
exercising such oversight arises from one or the other such political 
considerations. In that sense any institutional structure for 
'oversight' of ICANN-plus will necessarily be discussing such other 
public policy issues that IGC pushed for in WGIG and which are even more 
important to decide/ resolve in a globally democratic manner today.

> It'd be helpful to know, since the IGC will need to agree what the 
> session's about if it's approved.
Since IGC pushed for these other (non CIR) public policy issues to be 
included in definition of IG space, I think there must be a fair idea 
about such issues. We also had a workshop last year on transnational 
Internet. I do not think the idea of need for global governance in IG 
arena regarding non CIR issues is that elusive. But yes a discussion on 
this in the IGC is certainly going to be very useful.

Undemocratically negotiated cyber-security treaty, and now the 
anti-counterfeiting trade treaty, are all pointers to what we are 
talking about here. The manner in which such things are being done now 
are certainly much worse than a situation where WGIG 1, 3 or 4 models 
are in some way involved.  I don't think that CS's best strategy is to 
keep saying ITU is bad, ICANN is not ok in exercising political 
sovereignty, ACTA is not a right way to do things, without any 
suggestions or even discussions of possible alternatives.  I presume you 
have problems with all these institutional forms of dealing with global 
Internet related policies. If so, what in your opinion is the best way 
to go ahead? Will be glad to hear them. Non-governance is not an option. 
These are the issues that the workshop will deal with apart from 
problems with US's unilateral oversight of the ICANN.

Parminder
>>
>>
>> >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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090427/7c603191/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