[governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental (UN-ICANN)

[Eric Dierker]

At first blush Milton's argument may seem like an "if you build it they will come" form of logic.  On full reading it is clearly not. Milton makes a clear case that indeed, as we write, there is no more fitting center for IG. I go further and leave out the caveat "for civil society", as in my belief that is apriori.* Jeanette had me going until off list she offered no more sound rationale than that espoused here. Rather bluntly, Milton's last paragraph covers the reason - protectionism.
 
There was debate about putting the ICANN ballywick under the auspices of the UN.  As an authoritarian type mandate it was nixed. Certainly the success of ICANN independent was not reason for the denial of concept.  The rationale most agreed to was UN failure. But no one ever suggested that UN input was a bad idea and/or not beneficial. However the UN had no mechanism with credibility with which to accomplish positive guidance and influencial input. Milton's position seems to suggest that it now does and maybe should be revisited.  So I suggest we not only look to the IGC for input into the UN, but at a good opportunity for UN input into the IG.
 
 
*No one ever suggests uncivil society help with IG ;-)  ergo rogare mia sum

--- On Fri, 6/11/10, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Hi, b does not offer a workable solution because the caucus is not the
> global representative of civil society in the field of Internet
> governance. After years and years of this debate it would be really
> good if we could come to terms with the fact that people choose different
> avenues for applying for a seat on the MAG. If we want to suggest new
> ways of selecting members, we need to take into consideration that the
> IGC is not and will not be the center of the civil society world.

I don't agree. IGC is the closest thing there is to a global nexus for civil society discussion of IG. If the Secretariat or UN were to ratify it as the basis for selection, then many others would join it. Whatever the flaws and limitations of IGC, it is much more transparent and open a space for CS than people sidling up to their governments or businesses behind the scenes and asking them to be appointed to "represent" CS. 

The truth of my assertion can stand up to a very simple test: name ONE other organization or process that is superior to IGC in any important respect: embedded knowledge of IGF and its processes; more active participation by CS people involved in IG; linkages to WSIS and its resolutions and processes. Name one. 

A nominating committee? Don't make me laugh. Appointed by whom? Using what process? 
Nominating committees are just ways for insider groups to perpetuate themselves. We all know this from the ICANN process. 

--MM
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100612/dcca0a71/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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t