AW: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not?

[Ian Peter]

On a quick first read -

I cant see this satisfying many of the critics, even if it is a good step.
For China and others, the NTIA is still there and there is still no level
playing field. I cant see ITU being happy as a result. Those who want no
governments involved wont be happy with the expanded GAC role. Maybe civil
society will be a little happier than most actors - I do see some better
language there and perhaps a hint of more change to come. And yes a few
western nations will applaud the decision and welcome it.

Perhaps one effect will be an upping of the politics of GAC and higher level
governmental delegations. Another effect I think is the legitimisation and
institutionalisation of ICANN - wheras a year or two ago there may have been
moves to replace ICANN with something else, I doubt whether any such moves
will gain traction any more. ICANN is now with us for the long term - for
better or for worse - and changing ICANN at a fundamental level is probably
going to be about as difficult as changing IP protocols.


On 1/10/09 3:03 AM, "Wolfgang Kleinw‰chter"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Dear list,
>  
> I see it as a right next step into the right direction. If you understand the
> whole ICANN saga as a process than the "Affirmation" is just another step with
> an open outcome but a step forward.
>  
> There are some points which are really innovative:
>  
> a. the review panels will produce an interesting mix of new and innocative
> multistakeholder bodies where the members of these bodies will have probably
> to write their own rules for inner communication and interaction. This is the
> exploration of new territory. This goes beyond the WGIG and MAG experiences.
> Certainly the final confirmation for the composition of the review panels is
> in the hands of ICANNs CEO abd the GAC Chair. But this is already an
> expression of "co-governance", or - with other words - a further
> decentralization of power and decision making. Nobody can make single
> decisions. This will complicated the process, will lead to delays and certain
> forms of fighting inwards and outwards, but it makes the whole process more
> transparent, democratic, inclusive and at the end accountable to the broader
> public.
>  
> b. I like also the various principles which are included in the text -
> starting from the public interest to consumer choice, privacy protection,
> competition, stability, security, interoperability etc. If you collect all
> these principles and list it on one page you have a "Internet Governance
> Declaration" which goes beyond the Tunis document.
>  
> c. I am also pleased that ICANN and NTIA resisted the bipartisan letter which
> came from the US Congress in August. In his video Beckstrom argues in an
> impressive way that the "Affirmation" meets on the one hand the criteria of
> the letter (security, stability, headquartered in the US, US role in the GAC)
> etc. but does not follow the congressional recommendation just to continue
> with the JPA in its present form for ever. A very smart move.
>  
> I agree also with Bertrand that we need now a discussion how to implement this
> document, how to bring the paper language into political realities. It will
> depend to a high degree by the individuals (and institutions) who will become
> involved in this process. It will not be "rest in peace". It is a challenge
> with a lot of work, a lot of discussion and fierce struggles. But this process
> will create a dynamic process which will open doors to new territories with
> the potential to make Internet Governance more democratic, transparent,
> inclusive and accountable.
>  
> Wolfgang
> 
>  
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Gesendet: Mi 30.09.2009 17:57
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
> Betreff: Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not?
> 
> 
> 
> I would say the new arrangement offers a potential for change but is
> very difficult to say at this point to what extent such changes will
> become reality.
> 
> What I really like about the document is the degree to which the Obama
> administration acknowledges
> 
> * the existence of other fora and communities ("cross-community
> deliberations", para 7). This is very different from what we used to
> hear, namely that we should participate in ICANN instead of criticizing
> it from outside or elsewhere
> 
> * the problems with policy development in ICANN. Buzz words such as
> "fact-based policy development", responsive consultation procedures,
> "thorough and reasoned explanation of decisions taken" can be
> interpreted as an attempt to change to transform ICANN style of policy
> development.
> 
> Whether or not such a document can contribute to the badly needed change
> is another matter. As regulation experts like to say, the more detailed
> the rules, the easier to game them.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> 
> 
> Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>> On 30 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Mc tim,
>>> 
>>> I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if nothing
>>> changed ?
>>> 
>>> B.
>> 
>> 
>> And something did change.
>> 
>> Though I am not sure how much there is for Civil society to be cheer about.
>> It is like the old days of WSIS, CS will be beholden to the gov't chair
>> for right of participation.
>> 
>> Or, in the long run, other then outward appearance, how significant the
>> change will turn out to be for ICANN processes.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


____________________________________________________________
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