[governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?

[parminder]

On Tuesday 08 October 2013 07:24 PM, John Curran wrote:
> snip.
>
> The clear, uniform call by these organizations for globalization of 
> ICANN and IANA
> a would call a truly substantial development.

Can you please point to where such a proposal/ call exists... Is there 
agreement on making ICANN an international organisation incorporated 
under international law and not US law, and free from all kinds of US 
jurisdiction, and in a host country agreement with the US government and 
so on.... That is what globalisation or internationalisation means..... 
I happy to support any such proposal from the technical community, and 
this can be basis of some real change.

Opening a new office in Africa or China or India is not globalisation - 
even US has embassies in all these place, because of which US cannot be 
called as having been globalised or internationalised.

>  Regarding that "environment", I was
> hoping you'd tell me...  what would you like to look like?

We have always been very forthcoming to present what we think it would 
look like (although always open to further comments and changes). For 
instance, see this recent statement to the WGEC by 46 organisations 
including ours, 
http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/Statement_on_democratizing_Internet_governance_0.pdf 
.  Happy to hear your comments on this.

>
> For example, there is an "IANA Function Contract"...  how would one 
> globalize the
> 'IANA oversight' function that is nominally provided today by the 
> USG/NTIA?

See the above link...... Set up an international body that takes over 
this function with no accountability to the US, or any kind of US 
jurisdiction... Simple. What other way is there to globalise/ 
internationalise something ?

parminder


>
>> The plain fact is that in a socio political space no change takes 
>> place if we wait for every every entity to agree completely. So we 
>> can wait eternally for the full consensus to emerge and the status 
>> quo can meanwhile be. Public interest actors can still agree - as 
>> they do often in terms of global treaties etc - because of some 
>> genuine give and take involved, and at other times a leap of 
>> collective faith in global public interest....But when some private 
>> interest actors - who by definition look at narrow, relatively short 
>> term interest -  are also prominently lined up as essential parties 
>> to the sought for consensus, that is a pretty impossible task. A good 
>> recipe however to keep the status quo going.
>
> There's no reason for the organizations involved to issue a statement 
> if they desired
> maintenance of the status quo, and furthermore would definitely not 
> call for globalization
> of the ICANN and IANA functions, since that aspect alone is likely to 
> precipitate some
> significant change...
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131008/5c3d35a6/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