[governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14

[parminder]

On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>     Mawaki
>
>     Thanks for this effort.
>
>     As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like
>     'equitable multistakholder policy development model' are very
>     problematic unless we have some basic definition of what is meant
>     here, and  it clearly excludes decision making on public policy
>     issues...
>
>
> I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues 
> should be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever 
> their formal or theoretical definition (but based on our common 
> understanding or the meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we 
> use it in this Ig context.)

Would you please explain what that common understanding is.... Some of 
us have been asking for such a formulation for really really long now...

Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors, 
nether self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can 
have a 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this 
role is only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their 
collectives through some formal political process or formations, how 
much ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a 
different strand of political work). I can further clarify my position 
if needed.

While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding', I think 
that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme, want a 
business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone 
coming from a formal political process - called governments - in making 
actual decision making. THis is death of democracy.

parminder

PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and 
associated policy work in the manner that it does at present.


> Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government 
> or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have been so 
> in some period in the history of human societies but that may evolve? 
> And if so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not 
> necessarily be clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and 
> experimental at the beginning, and that it may be experimented in just 
> one or a few sectors before extending to other domains of governance?
>
> I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public 
> policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really 
> enforce them to the extent that those policies are really public. But 
> why public policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's 
> your position)? And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?
>
> If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of 
> the government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm 
> afraid to say that from my understanding of past discussions on this 
> list, that is unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go 
> back there again?
>
>     This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>
>     Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision
>     and complimenting US gov for it, shouldupfront say that we are
>     eager to know more details - especially about (1) whether it means
>     that ICANN would no longer be under any contractual obligations
>     with the US gov, and be in independent control of the root zone
>     server, and (2) what happens to the issue of jurisdiction of
>     incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US laws and such
>     and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing ICANN'
>     and if so, of what nature....
>
>
> Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened 
> negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a 
> position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could 
> be expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow 
> (no transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours 
> principles as guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop 
> a transition proposal which should include the details of what will 
> follow. So I think apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test 
> they spelled out in the announcement, all your questions above can 
> only be answered in the transition proposal to be developed with our 
> participation and that of all other stakeholders.
>
> Mawaki
>
>     And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of
>     ICANN, in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>
>     Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance
>     institutions do not have customers, only constituencies and the
>     such...
>
>     Thanks, parminder
>
>
>     On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>
>>     Dear All,
>>
>>     Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration
>>     and possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted
>>     considering the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer
>>     organization with same concerns.
>>
>>     We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>     ---
>>
>>     IGC Draft Press Release
>>
>>     On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National
>>     Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
>>     announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has
>>     played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
>>     and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.
>>      As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of
>>     the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
>>     privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship.
>>
>>     The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>>     appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
>>     multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the
>>     Internet. In that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the
>>     reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders
>>     in the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully
>>     completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members
>>     and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the
>>     needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the
>>     IANA services”] We also support the four principles put forward
>>     by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the
>>     formulation of a proposal to finalize this transition.
>>
>>
>>     While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations
>>     and technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call
>>     attention to the utmost importance of giving due consideration to
>>     the concerns and views of non-technical and non-commercial
>>     stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed IGC supports the
>>     multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it does
>>     not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due
>>     consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of
>>     Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure
>>     the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean
>>     ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ but is rather open to embrace
>>     a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.
>>
>>
>>     Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing
>>     the appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly
>>     global governance institution – with a constituency and a
>>     customer base that actually is global. Related to that and more
>>     broadly, adequate responses must be found to the concern that
>>     while achieving effective accountability such institution (to
>>     emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any one
>>     national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be
>>     equally available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>>
>>
>>     Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming
>>     NETMundial, the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet
>>     Governance(www.netmundial.br <http://www.netmundial.br>) to be
>>     held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its
>>     consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions
>>     made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as
>>     regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the
>>     coordination of the Internet’s domain name system.
>>
>>     The Internet Governance Caucus
>>
>>     March xx, 2014.
>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/caefb9e1/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