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

Andrea Glorioso andrea at digitalpolicy.it
Mon Mar 17 09:00:06 EDT 2014 

Suresh,

I obviously have no intention to discuss the IGC statement, which is none
of my business; but for my own education, could you clarify what it is
precisely that the majority of civil society and other stakeholders (which
ones?) have agreed to?

Sorry if I missed something.

Best,

Andrea
On Mar 17, 2014 12:41 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net>
wrote:

> Parminder, an understanding that you may not share or agree with does not
> become any the less common because of that.   Put another way, it is what
> the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already agreed
> upon, and these are things you have railed upon at length in the past.
>
> Protecting and encouraging minority views is fine - but when they are
> diametrically opposed to the consensus and there is absolutely no attempt
> to work towards the consensus, well - such encouragement can only go so far.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 17-Mar-2014, at 16:55, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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>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, should upfront 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)
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/be389699/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

More information about the Governance mailing list