[governance] is icann an institution?

[Milton L Mueller]

I think Bertrand's questions are good ones.
I really don't understand your concept of an institution; and since economic institutionalism is my paradigm that's a problem.
Institutions can be social or anti-social - a large part of the institutional economics literature, and what made it more interesting than its neoclassical predecessors was the recognition that things like parasitism, exploitation and zero-sum or negative sum games can be and are often institutionalized, via path-dependent processes. One should not confuse a normative appraisal of ICANN with its status as an Institution. Institution is a value-neutral term in my lexicon.

ICANN does have a social purpose: it is the institution that resolves conflicts over property rights and coordination of the Internet's naming system. (See Ruling the Root, 2002) It is the arena through which stakeholders with power over various functions in the Internet addressing system come to terms. That's how institutions emerge - via conflict. Governments are now buying into it, via the GAC, which gives them a dangerous extra-constitutional, extra legal power to make policy. GAC is becoming institutionalized, partly through sheer inertia, partly because certain interests like or benefit from the model. Therefore ICANN is an institution; a pretty friggin messy and loose one, still, but it performs an ordering function and it defines and assigns property rights. If you've read the miserable IRT report, you see that it's still a growing one: it is superseding trademark law with ICANN-defined rules taken to amazing new extremes, the integration of domain name registration into a reservation and matching system of globally protected marks. A rapid suspension service.

And again, back to Bertrand, ok, if you and Parminder don't think we should work through ICANN give us viable strategies and scenarios for getting _liberal_ and democratic freedoms in to global governance of the Internet some other way. I'm all ears.
--MM


________________________________
From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:meryem at marzouki.info]
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 1:09 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom

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<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
   governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090920/ea00d4db/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