[governance] RE: JPA

[William Drake]

Hi

On May 24, 2009, at 5:11 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>
> IGC BELIEVES THAT THE SECURITY OF THE INTERNET DNS CAN ONLY BE  
> ENSURED BY INTERNATIONAL AND TRANSATIONAL CO-OPERATION.  THAT CO- 
> OPERATION WILL BE ENHANCED BY TRANSITION BEYOND THE JPA TO A  
> SITUATION WHERE ALL COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, FEEL  
> THEY HAVE EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION
>
> MM: These comments don’t really address the rather radical question  
> posed: is the model the right one? What are possible alternatives?  
> If it is the right one, is ICANN ready to execute it without US  
> oversight? However you answer this, we must make it clear that ICANN  
> is a governance or economic-regulatory body, not a business or an  
> industry association, and appropriate standards should apply.

Further to Milton's point, ICANN's existential status is an issue that  
might merit discussion if IGC files a comment.  It seems that despite  
all the international political debates of the past six years, a  
substantial percentage of the key individuals and orgs still see ICANN  
as essentially a business designed to create and capture profit making  
opportunities, rather than as a international institution with wider  
socio-political roles and responsibilities.  This was captured nicely  
in an exchange during the  Joint AC/SO meeting Mexico City.  When  
panelists were asked by the moderator to describe how they see policy  
development processes, a leading member of the business constituency  
and of the GNSO Council replied that policy was about making better  
contracts, full stop, a view that was echoed by others. In response,  
Bertrand suggested that policy was about advancing the global public  
interest, to which some others replied that they didn't know what the  
term could really mean.  And this orientation is arguably reflected in  
a lot of other data points, e.g. the criteria being used to recruit a  
new CEO, the reactions to GAC proposals from various groupings, the  
design of various current policy initiatives, etc.  Others may  
disagree, but to me there seems to be a pretty deep and problematic  
disconnect between the internal culture and priorities and the  
external environment.

>
> ICANN still lacks adequate accountability. Its bottom up processes  
> can be ignored, bypassed or dictated top-down by its Board, or  
> manipulated by its policy staff. Its Independent Review Process is  
> inadequate. Its relationship to international law ambiguous. The  
> rights of people to challenge its actions on the basis of  
> established law unclear.

Yup
>
>
> IGC BELIEVES THAT SUFFICIENT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THESE AREAS  
> FOR THIS TRANSITION TO TAKE PLACE.
> MM: I am beginning to question this.
>
As am I.  Assuming that the present internal trajectory would continue  
unabated and that there will not be any prior agreement on some sort  
of new ms/global model of external review and accountability, one does  
wonder about the potential unintended consequences of setting it loose  
in the wild.  We could end up with increasing capture and policy  
narrowness coupled with increasing agitation elsewhere for  
(inter)governmental responses.  At a minimum, one would hope to see a  
more systematic elaboration of the potential costs/benefits of the  
alternatives than has been advanced so far.

Cheers,

Bill



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090525/ce65a1b2/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