[governance] No internet administration without representation

[Riaz K Tayob]

Parminder

Since the Indian Minister thread is "tired", I thought this might be 
more apt for our convo as if others are not here... which is "open" to 
others...

If we take an evolutionary perspective to change, and a political 
economy  i.e. to achieve change necessarily means replacing a radical 
view with one of reform - then the educative process on root servers was 
useful, and is just a beginning of an issue that has been smothered time 
and time again. What strikes me is how the elements of the technical 
side have evolved, and how flexible some of the arrangements actually 
are at some levels and how the technical arguments can be dialectically 
used for the status quo (stability) and against it (flexibility, 
anycast, etc). And as Conrad puts it, political agendas are fine if 
there is precision - which is just what is needed.

On Drake and others, I think evolutionary change is precisely 
experimental. As every general view needs to be refined until it 
resolves itself into a crisp demand capable of legal or policy 
rendering. There is not one conception of legitimacy, and it can begin 
slowly (that is why some of the 'single root believers'/'anti CIR 
discussion' case is belied by changes by ICANN et al made),. Arguments 
against CIR legitimacy have come in many shades, ranging from you can't 
have more than one root through to there are too many players to change 
these matters through to "USA!USA! USA!"

Burying CIR as many wish to, based on a political judgement of 
impossibility, has its merits (at the first IGF this was done with only 
the BBCs Nick Gowing being allowed to raise the issue with none other 
than Vint Cerf - at a non-binding forum) especially if it opens up 
spaces to discuss other issues. Thomas has put forward a proposal that 
may well be a starting point for keeping the issue of legitimacy of CIR 
on the agenda. While the most dirty tricks have been played to detract 
attention from this issue (which makes remarkable coincidence with those 
whose political assessment is that change on this is impossible, 
mentioned so that those who care to be sensitive and open can understand 
and perhaps take some heed), a /process solution/ to keep the flame 
burning allows a number of things. Others can then also work on 
different issues of importance. And those with an interest in this 
matter can pursue it. The only reservation I have is with the 
reactionaries of the anti-legitimacy crowd (I desist from mob, after all 
they seem not be part of the great unwashed if you get my drift ;) and 
so you should plan accordingly including being morose/hard 
ass/difficult/contrary/nice/abivalent/etc (Practically this would mean 
that ALL processes/panels/discussions need not be "balanced" - that 
there be space for broadening - discussions that are balanced - and 
deepening - one sided discussions that take CIR governance as illegit, 
or technical courses on architecture). Conrad especially, and others 
even with whom you/we disagree, have shown not only generosity but 
openness to engage and this at least is civil if robust. But perhaps 
some of the marginals like Auerbach could be drawn back in as well - 
this is quite essential, imho, if as a community we are to regard 
ourselves as inclusive rather than merely likeminded with a few token 
dissenters.

As we know, the danger here is that other issues will be used as Weapons 
of Mass Distraction - a danger that one merely be aware of, perhaps in 
the Chinese sense, you could allow them to save some face.

On saving face, I think here we need to let people ride in the front of 
the bus so to speak. In these matters of political judgement, there are 
simply forks in the road where we have to agree to disagree.  Many are 
more comfortable with their own governments than with others, and issues 
tend to be more contestable in the rich countries than in ours. However, 
I think there is also some level of arrogance that goes with such views, 
which should not be forgotten. And the people expressing them may not be 
arrogant, but they need to be aware of context, so...

I do not think that USers often appreciate how dangerous Bush's 
retrospective legislation on telecoms companies revealing data sans 
court order was in legal terms (retrospectivity in law is quite an 
exception) or that the PATRIOT act will only really end its reign until 
the US signs a peace treaty with terrorism. Even on matters of 
corruption, on everything from the derivatives scandals to LIBOR we see 
that there are different forms of corruption/deceit/oppression 
Southerners are country bumpkins when it comes to ripping stuff off 
compared to Northerners (and by the way tax write offs for bribes to 
South countries used to exist until very recently in the rich 
countries): 23 trillion for bankers while Barofsky of TARP says the 
government/Geithner was not interested in sorting out foreclosures or 
helping home owners (which were about a 3 trillion problem in the US). 
But some lessons one has to learn the hard way and no amount of talk or 
data will make the case that some political oversight and contestability 
in issues may not be a bad thing (a refrain often used on the poor 
countries to improve their governance). I will not even go into 
Wikileaks. I mention this not to pique differences, but merely to 
highlight the point that if Southerners need to acknowledge the 
governance problems then a double standard should not be applied when it 
comes to the North. The ticket for participation in civil society is 
reason, and so goose and gander stuff applies here... even if we 
acknowledge that many things are better handled in the North (some 
issues are simply acceptable unsayable as Drake points out CIR, or as 
Friends of the Earth  on the US climate change/Kyoto Protocol - so there 
are lots finicky politicking that needs also be acknowledged if 
difference is taken seriously).

And it is not ONLY that something big and bad that is the problem - in 
which MAD is a counterbalance. It is the subtle abuse that can creep 
into the system (like potential misdirection based on resolve requests 
timing as Auerbach points out, etc) - and like me, your experience in 
civil society on these issues  does not need any instruction on how 
corrosive subtle continual vilification, abuse, marginalisation can be - 
and this can be the same for governance of CIR. This is NOT about 
hypotheticals at all. It is about a resource that serves a global public 
good function whose stability and development is in the public interest 
- and even if people disagree (forks) a negative inference cannot be 
made of those who raise legitimacy as public interest. Nor can any 
claims to universalism be made that are definitive for either side. It 
is contested, and therefore in civil society MUST be contestable.

  The essential problem always is, who guards the guardians. There are 
two views here:

1) there is not the ability to guard - which is a valid proposition 
(i.e. US will never do it, it is complicated, the operators will not 
agree - all valid from some perspective or level of abstraction). And we 
must do what we can. However there ought also to be space for those who 
want Pessimism of the intellect (technicalities, precision) and optimism 
of the will (no i-admin w/out reptn), suffices...

2) there is no interest /need to guard. These people usually indict 
themselves imho as time flows...

Great stuff for the India Minister discussion and all who contributed...!

Peace

riaz


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120810/2ffacaaf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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