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

[parminder]

On Wednesday 09 October 2013 11:22 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Parminder,
>
> I would like to get clarification from your side about this part
>
>
>         This board will replace the US government's current oversight
>         role over the technical and operational functions performed by
>         ICANN. The membership of this oversight board can be of a
>         techno-political nature, /i.e./consisting of people with
>         specialized expertise but who also have appropriate political
>         backing, ascertained through a democratic process. For
>         instance, the board can be made of 10/15 members, with 2/3
>         members each from five geographic regions (as understood in
>         the UN system). These members can perhaps be selected through
>         an appropriate process by the relevant technical standards
>         bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the countries
>         of the respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting
>         the techno-political membership of this board can also be
>         considered.)
>
>
> in particular the meaning of "appropriate political backing" and what 
> kind of democratic process you are envisioning?

Hi Rafik,

This is left deliberately vague, to accommodate a series of possible 
options. However, it is being made clear that we want both political 
legitimacy and backing as well as technical expertise - without 
possibility for political subversion (that is typically feared from a 
multilateral UN kind of body) but also not left to be captured by anyone 
with global political an economic muscle, which, excuse me to say, 
technical bodies are prone to be captured by. Well, in any case, 
oversight is a political or public policy function and not something 
that technical community can be legitimacy be exercising by itself. 
'Political' in the sense that every person has equal right to bring in 
her/ his perceptive irrespective of their technical knowledge, which 
brings the challenge of arriving at the highest public interest. .

One may look at some global standards bodies which consist of area 
experts - coming often from established and relatively autonomous 
institutions - but also having some kind/ level of political acceptance 
in their respective countries etc.... As I said elsewhere, say half of 
the members of this proposed new oversight body can be from regional 
registries, and other half from country based technical institutions, by 
rotation - numerous such possibilities exist.

parminder

>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>     parminder
>
>
>>
>>>>     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 ?
>>
>>     There are many different possible structures and mechanisms, for
>>     example,
>>     you propose a new UN body, an Oversight Board, globalization of
>>     ICANN,
>>     and maintenance/strengthening of the existing IGF.  I can easily
>>     imagine
>>     other methods of solving this problem with different arrangements
>>     of bodies
>>     and mechanisms.
>>
>>     The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation
>>     does not
>>     propose any particular solution, but only states that several
>>     organizations
>>     which are involved in Internet coordination believe that the
>>     globalization of
>>     ICANN and IANA functions (towards an environment in which all
>>     stakeholders,
>>     including all governments, participate on an equal footing) is a
>>     goal worth
>>     accelerating.
>>
>>     Given your strong expression of concern over the statement, I
>>     guess the
>>     question arises - would you have preferred a statement
>>     which indicated that
>>     the current USG oversight of ICANN and IANA is just fine?   That
>>     certainly
>>     would have supported the status quo...
>>
>>     /John
>>
>>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131009/9eb87a86/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