[governance] Towards Singapore

David Allen David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu
Wed May 25 11:13:41 EDT 2011 

Thanks to Wolfgang Kleinwächter for this delightful piece, more than  
that - artful, graceful, a key history for next thinking and a  
pleasure indeed!  Thanks.

May we also consider some alternative 'interpretations'?

For instance, from the piece -
> A new awareness among governments about their role in ICANN emerged  
> after the 2nd phase of the UN World Summit on the Information  
> Society (WSIS) which, more or less, recognized and strengthened the  
> ICANN model.


In fact, the WSIS summit process, supposed to focus on ICTs for  
development, was hijacked by a struggle, initially between the US and  
the rest of the world, for 'control of the Internet.'  This transpired  
from practically the beginning, even during the PrepComs for phase one.

If we take a broader, longer historical view, on the contest - ITU as  
responsible, vis-a-vis the Internet, versus a liberalized approach  
championed in the US -, that struggle had been well under way before  
WSIS even emerged.  WSIS, from the early stages, only presented a  
platform, seized for ongoing volleys in the matter.

Yes, states that previously had not had their consciousness raised on  
the subject then began to put the matter more forward on their radar.   
But the states who cared about the question - among them, some of  
those powerful in their regions - were already active; WSIS became the  
grounds to take the conflict next steps.


As to the larger issue(s) at stake, for instance high noon in  
Singapore (but we can't ignore, noon in Singapore is only one marker  
in a long time series, not just a moment 'now') - let's break this  
down, into three pieces.


1  As said, the contest, long at play, has been, 'who is in [some]  
driver's seat.'  For the Internet.  Power, and where it lies, are  
always part of questions in stakes such as those here.  Even when  
lambs and lions may make quarters together for some period.

Will states really feel comfortable, going down the road, with, as the  
piece describes, a:

> private sector leadership model ?


The piece notes,
> If the GAC would move into a position to dictate to the ICANN Board  
> what to do, this would mean the end of the multi-stakeholder model


ICANN is not even the central locale, wherein this (fundamental)  
matter will be resolved.  As events the end of last year made clear,  
other vectors, in international affairs - non-private - have the long- 
standing questions front and center, of who will be responsible.


2  But let's take up the case, that ICANN be considered for locus, to  
handle Internet governance on its topics.  As the piece says, as:

> an internationalized mechanism as an experiment and an innovation  
> into the political landscape to preserve the bottom-up dynamics of  
> [ ] Internet development


Where multi-stakeholderism is a cornerstone innovation, again from the  
piece,

> Multi-stakeholderism can be best describe[d] by a circle. In the  
> multi-stakeholder model there is no formal hierarchy. All partners  
> are needed and have to make a contribution according to their  
> specific role. There is an interdependence among the various  
> stakeholders. One can’t live without the other.



2a  This and other such descriptions, IMHO, lack actionable substance  
- there is no 'there' there.  While most admirable in aspiration, the  
pronouncements so far on multi-stakeholderism do not get beyond  
aspiration.  The ideals are lofty, but devoid of operable  
particulars.  For outcomes, at least IMHO, there must be some  
substance, both as to an outline for a new arrangement, then concrete  
particulars for roles, process et al. - but most especially, something  
agreed to, or that can be agreed to, by the usual suspects.

Bill Drake, in the WSIS Forum just finished, convened a discussion  
that seemed aimed to engender much-needed quality dialog on the  
subject (have not had a chance to listen, but will surely do so).   
Until there is some meat on those bones, those who have an eye can see  
why individuals, in relevant positions, will not be prepared to hand  
over serious authority to such an arrangement.  And why other venues  
will likely decide the outcomes, which may eventuate in yet 'other  
venues.'

That is so, certainly and most particularly, when one main venue for  
multi-stakeholderism has persistent difficulties making its own  
machinery work.  Anyway, as repeated observations about IGC itself, on  
the list, would indicate.  IGC would - otherwise, one would think - be  
necessary as showpiece and be 'exhibit one' for the 'ism.'

Fortuitously,  Wolfgang Kleinwächter begins to address just this need,  
in the recent response (today 25 May) to Divina Meigs' e-G8 reporting:

> Probably we have to re-mobilize and re-vitalize the WSIS working  
> methods among CS. ... what we certainly need is a more formalized  
> structure and more communication and coordination among the various  
> activities to speak with one (diversified) CS voice. This includes a  
> clear understanding what CS wants to add to the process, what the CS  
> wants to achieve and what our priorities are.



2b  Continuing with the third item.  The 'high noon' piece speaks of,

> an environment of mutual trust

It points to the objective:

> putting aside individual interest and serving the public

What are the facts, as we consider if ICANN may be the paradigm for  
such Internet governance?

Despite all pretensions to the contrary, ICANN has served narrow  
interests, particularly the financial interests of that small handful  
who provide much of its funding.  The topic is usually taboo.  But  
more than one of those at the very core of the ICANN ecology plainly  
acknowledge this reality.  The organization finds ways to change  
policy, toward final stages, in ways that favor the tiny handful of  
incumbents, generally from the West, who provide its funding.

This self-dealing is the very antithesis of 'public service' - this is  
self service, which only disadvantages the rest of the world.  To see  
the dynamic in some relief, we only have to look to recent uprisings  
in the Middle East.  ICANN is corrupt.

In the end, such an ICANN miserably fails any test for trust or even- 
handed public service.  Whatever ideals might be served, by multi- 
stakeholder visions for a future, they come crashing to the ground in  
this ugly reality.


As it happens, this topic brings up, from last year's end, what was  
supposed to complete, as a second installment, a report re the  
enhanced cooperation vector.  So hopefully, that may now find time for  
completion.


Again however - thanks for this contribution, this High Noon piece.   
It is a pleasure.  And as we see the piece offers, itself, to engender  
dialog.

David

On May 22, 2011, at 4:26 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> FYI
>
> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/05/18/high-noon-in-singapore
>
> wolfgang


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110525/4f886cd1/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, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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

More information about the Governance mailing list