[governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom

Sun Sep 20 13:48:25 EDT 2009

Meryem,

Thanks for the clarification. Well taken. Your point is therefore more about
ICANN not being an "institution", because of its supposed lack of social
purpose.

May I bring two elements to ponder/discuss in that respect :

1)  first, the text of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation contain the
following words :

3. This Corporation is a *nonprofit public benefit corporation* and is not
organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the
California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable and
public purposes. The Corporation is organized, and will be operated,
*exclusively
for charitable, educational, and scientific purposes* within the meaning of
§ 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"),
or the corresponding provision of any future United States tax code. [ .. ]
In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact
that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no
single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except as
limited by Article 5 hereof, *pursue the charitable and public purposes of
lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public
interestin the operational stability of the Internet
*by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as
needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing
and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet
Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions
related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"),
including the development of policies for determining the circumstances
under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv)
overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system;
and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of
items (i) through (iv).

4. The Corporation shall operate *for the benefit of the Internet community
as a whole*, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant
principles of international law and applicable international conventions and
local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles
and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable
competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the
Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international
organizations.

Couldn't these words be qualified as defining a social purpose ?

2) In many respects, the domain name system is a global public
resource. *Doesn't
the management of a global public resource in the global public interest
qualify as a social purpose ?* Isn't ICANN an attempt at establishing a
multi-stakeholder organization/institution/agency managing a global public
resource ?

If this is the case, why not engage in trying to define its ideal
institutional framework ? Different stakeholder groups - and even people on
this list - may have different views on what the ideal institutional
framework should be for ICANN. And this is not only fine but necessary. But
they need to engage in the discussion in order to make it evolve to become
fully accountable.

The coming year will be an opportunity to develop such a debate. Why is
staying out of the discussion helping ICANN evolve in the right way ? There
will be opportunities for all actors in the coming months to weigh in,
because the discussion on the organization's future will develop. I hope
participants on this list will use them. I say it on a personal basis and in
my current functions.

Best

Bertrand

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info>wrote:

> Bertrand, you intervention in this discussion might also help in case there
> is a difference in the concept of "institution" in French and in English..My
> point is not with the global or not global nature of ICANN. It is rather
> with qualifying it or not as an "institution".
> I already acknowledged that it makes global decision, impacting the whole
> world: not sure it makes it truly global, but sort of. I also acknowledge
> that, say, a really big multinational firm (whatever its sector of activity:
> finance, security/military, industry, service..) could be a global entity,
> in the same sense.
> But an institution, at least in my understanding, has something to do with
> social order. For better or for worse (an institution is not necessarily
> democratic), but its purpose is social (like in society, not necessarily
> like in social justice).
> I don't think ICANN has any social purpose. Not that it doesn't deal with
> issues having highly social implications -- it does, but the point is that
> it has NOT been designed as such. And, to be honest, I don't think there is
> any reasonable hope to modify it so that its start looking like an
> institution.
>
> Hope this starts answering your questions, and that this might explain why
> I think CS (nor governments, BTW) shouldn't *participate* in its processes
> since, yes, they legitimize it this way, and they make it somewhat look like
> an institution, when it is not, and wont become, in my opinion.
>
> Best,
> Meryem
>
> Le 20 sept. 09 à 18:34, Bertrand de La Chapelle a écrit :
>
> Dear Meryem,
>
> Looking at your interesting exchange with Milton regarding the "global" or
> non global nature of ICANN, I'd like to ask two complementary questions :
> - what would be required in your view to make ICANN truly global ? what
> kind of modification ?
> - and can such an outcome be obtained without participating in ICANN's
> processes, (which brings the risk of legitimizing it, if I understand you
> well) ?
>
> These questions are not jokes. I think you both touch upon very difficult
> issues that a lot of people are grappling with. I sincerely am interested in
> practical suggestions. The issue of ICANN's accountability to all
> stakeholders will be high on the agenda in the post-JPA framework.
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
>
>>
>>  The whole point with ICANN in this discussion is that it is NOT a
>>>> "global institution".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not sure what you mean here. If its effects are global and it is
>>> institutionalized it is, in my definition, a global institution. And ICANN
>>> more or less meets both criteria. I am sure you understand that no global
>>> polity will spring perfectly into being.
>>>
>>
>> Sure. But my definition is different from yours. I think ICANN is an
>> organization, led and driven by private companies and interests (including
>> multi-nationals), still having to be somewhat accountable to the US gov, but
>> willing to get rid of this. Well, this is quickly written and misses many
>> details and subtleties, but that's to explain why, in my opinion, it doesn't
>> fit any acceptable definition of a global institution. I think your
>> definition is too inclusive here.
>>
>>  rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, whatever the genuineness
>>>> of your intentions and efforts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, one does have to make choices. If it's a choice between the DNS and
>>> IP addresses being taken over by states/IGOs or some modification and
>>> evolution of the ICANN/RIR regime I've made my choice.
>>>
>>
>> You fall into this again. I've thought we've gone beyond the ICANN vs. ITU
>> debate?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
> Information Society
> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
> Foreign and European Affairs
> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>
> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
> Exupéry
> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090920/7ea23aa9/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