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

Andrea Glorioso andrea at digitalpolicy.it
Mon Mar 17 09:12:16 EDT 2014 

I read Parminder's remarks (and hence your objection to them, on which I
was seeking clarifications) as rather more specific than having consensus
on "multi-stakeholderism".

Andrea
On Mar 17, 2014 2:06 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> There is, for example, a broad consensus about multistakeholderism, I hope?
>
> Parminder, from his previous emails, seems to have some strong
> disagreement with some aspects of MSism here.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:30, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/a7ef6111/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