[governance] ICANN/FIFA

Fri May 29 08:12:47 EDT 2015

David,

The parallel between FIFA and ICANN has a lot of limitations. However, one common ground relates to the fact that 
ICANN collects money throughout the domain name business, (registar/registries) a pairing that has no fundamental necessity. So for each single yearly domain name fee, ICANN gets its cents. FIFA is funding with a similar toll worldwide over each individual soccer player's license. The new TLD business by ICANN was of no necessity in terms of covering the expenditure to handle the DNS/Domain Name eco-system. I am still wondering why, except for paying outsiders, stakeholders, civil society participants, conferences and meetings to defend a state of de facto dominance for the big players, we have to go into such a racket. Moreover, one racket that comes at a very heavy price, introducing a very discriminatory fashion to end-user. Auctioning domain names is simply not acceptable.
When one think of alternative roots, such as open root - dns, domain name management system competitor to ICANN - you pay for a domain name for life. Not every year. As we all know the TLDs files are rather small.

Agree with your point concerning ICANN, when it comes to accountability. But the point made by JNC was made when thinking of civil society participants (that would have multiple hats for example).

Whatever critique is made to Parminder (and JNC) proposal regarding transparency, why don't you come with a serious alternative? Unless you think this is not a serious concern. As Jeremy puts it bluntly, such a process might do more arm than good. Amusing to think that transparency is having a negative impact (on what by the way?) So if poorly thought, please provide a brightly thought scheme.

Lambasting is not was is happening. Questioning the way we act as CS, is not lambasting. It is fair to all, and to people CS is supposedly representing (even poorly).

And inlines here
> > JNC has been fighting over the introduction of a democratic pulse within IG.

	Wel, they’ve certainly been fighting over the inclusion of the word ‘democracy’ in some statements. Whether or not that amounts to the same thing as ‘introduction of a democratic pulse’ is probably something on which there is significant disagreement. 

JC: Any questioning welcome. Inserting the word "democracy", as we have real difficulties to have people stepping out of the multistakeholder sandbox, is already a small achieving. But since Delhi Declaration, JNC has brought together more people, and more awareness regarding core issues in IG. The Internet Social Forum is part of that effort and we should all consider a positive and open outcome. 

> I see JNC has deserving recognition for that. Is fighting for democratic principles within a social community of public interest (IG) a "game", or isn't more simply part of the political debate (democracy) and the need for a different Internet governance (out of US domination by its public and private leadership)

	Or perhaps JNC is fighting to have democratic principles interpreted in the means of its choosing. I certainly feel that I am fighting for democratic principles (or at least, transparency, accountability, inclusion, openness, and human rights), but most JNC members seem to feel that I am misguided and should perhaps be fighting for things such as a stronger representation of government (in the hopes that that naturally equates to democracy), or processes that are less inclusive of actors they dislike (such as those representing commercial interests). 

JC: I do respect your fighting for democratic principles. However I do not recognize JNC in the way you characterize it : a stronger representation of govs would equate to more democracy does not mean that govs should take control. JNC has made a simple assumption that it was not acceptable that the tenants of the current IG space (vested interests) would grant themselves an equal footing right with representatives of people's across the planet when it comes to public interest decision making. So far, except a few of us, including myself before the Sao Paulo conference, few have offered/drafted a concrete alternative to the current IG current de facto governance of the Internet. Maybe we should ask ourselves why the call for paper to suggest a roadmap for an alternative IG system before Sao Paulo was never discussed, elaborated, followed-up. This roadmap is still the BIGGEST pending question in the IG space. For many this could only lead to a "nice" conclusion: the status quo is fine, and the transition of IANA from ICANN/DoC to ICANN by ICANN is just the best way to emancipate and internationalize the governance of the Internet. 

A big joke indeed, and another lesson not taken.

JC
Le 29 mai 2015 à 11:44, David Cake a écrit :

> 
>> On 29 May 2015, at 3:55 pm, Jean-Christophe Nothias <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:
>> - David (Cake)
>> > Corruption has little to do with a system based on national representation. Study, source? I mean more than within the private sector, or any other space.
> 
> 	I was simply pointing out that FIFA is based on a system of direct voting based on national representatives. In this it somewhat loosely resembles, say, some ITU processes,

> more so than multi-stakeholder processes. I’m simply saying that neither recorded direct voting or a system based only on gatekeepered national representatives have prevented significant corruption in this case. 
> 	Some prominent JNC members have been quite explicit in saying that they prefer the UN or ITU model, in which ultimate decision making, and in particular selection of senior officials, goes to a direct ballot in which each nation has a single vote. Notably FIFA uses a similar model. And is allegedly, despite a massive corruption scandal, about to re-select the same leadership. In particular, an administration very unpopular with large nations in Western Europe (though popular with some other large nations, like Russia) is likely to be re-elected by votes from a large number of small nations. I’m not implying that the voting model always leads to flawed results (of course there are many other factors), but FIFA certainly represents an obvious counter-example to claims it prevents corruption, and has some parallels to criticisms often made of UN processes. 
> 
> 	In short, if there is, as Michael contends, some lesson to be learnt from FIFA in regards to the IANA transition and ICANN it is this - be wary of a 1 vote per nation, UN style, model, as if anything it increases accountability and transparency issues. Those of us within ICANN have already seen this time and again in the ICANN GAC. 

> 
>> > Thanks for acknowledging that "accountability and TRANSPARENCY are important factors". Maybe Jeremy should talk to you about this, as he has difficulties to talk to JNC about such critical issue.
> 
> 	Within ICANN, transparency per se is an issue, but the biggest transparency issue is accountability not transparency - transparency standards are generally quite high, but the accountability mechanisms are lacking to enforce them when they are really needed. In most ICANN policy processes, every meeting is open to anyone to listen, is recorded, recordings and transcripts are made available, every full participant has lodged an SOI, and so one. But yet when you might to find out which senior staff member made a particular dubious decision, suddenly the staff will have difficulty finding those documents or similar. 
> 	I don’t think this invalidates Jeremy’s critique of Parminders plan. NGOs are participants, not management. I agree the suggested mechanism through CSCG is inappropriate. I think there are other, more appropriate, mechanisms for NGO transparency. And like many others, I suspect that the results of the process will be an excuse for the JNC to continue to focus on matters internal to CS, lambasting those of us who dare to be funded by those Parminder dislikes (the US government and corporations), if anything actively interfering with the ability of CS to actively engage in the IG space. Not that I think transparency is bad - my own org publishes its accounts, as do many others - but it seems a poorly thought out proposal that puts the focus on the wrong place (on the ‘purity’ of CS participants, rather than accountability and transparency within IG decision making processes themselves). 
> 
>> > JNC focusing on games at "democracy"? JNC has called for more transparency among participants to the current IG space: would that be playing game or would it be "focusing on the practical push for accountability..." Not sure who is getting confused here.
> 
> 	I was assuming we all had the level of perspective to consider discussions had within, say, the last couple of months. Or even, when discussing the IANA transition process, to understand that I was referring to actions made over the entire IANA transition process, not comments made on the IGC list on a different topic in the last few days. Apparently not. So let me clarify - when I was talking about accountability, I was referring specifically to accountability of ICANN/IANA, that being the topic Michael brought up, not the accountability of civil society organisations, that being an entirely different subject brought up by Parminder. 
> 	FWIW, I find it sadly quite typical of the dynamics of this list that we have had so very little discussion of the accountability aspects of IANA and ICANN here (major, significant efforts
> 	
> 
>> > JNC has been fighting over the introduction of a democratic pulse within IG.
> 	
> 	Wel, they’ve certainly been fighting over the inclusion of the word ‘democracy’ in some statements. Whether or not that amounts to the same thing as ‘introduction of a democratic pulse’ is probably something on which there is significant disagreement. 
> 
>> I see JNC has deserving recognition for that. Is fighting for democratic principles within a social community of public interest (IG) a "game", or isn't more simply part of the political debate (democracy) and the need for a different Internet governance (out of US domination by its public and private leadership)
> 
> 	Or perhaps JNC is fighting to have democratic principles interpreted in the means of its choosing. I certainly feel that I am fighting for democratic principles (or at least, transparency, accountability, inclusion, openness, and human rights), but most JNC members seem to feel that I am misguided and should perhaps be fighting for things such as a stronger representation of government (in the hopes that that naturally equates to democracy), or processes that are less inclusive of actors they dislike (such as those representing commercial interests). 
> 
>> Everyone can take the lessons he wants to take.
> 
> 	Indeed. 
> 	
> 	David
>> 
>> JC
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le 29 mai 2015 à 09:26, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> one lesson is that the service a group delivers has to be linked to strong accountability mechanism. Insofar, ICANNs Accountability discussion, which has started last year as an open, transparent and bottom up process with the involvement of all stakeholders is a key for ICANN´s future and the good service people expect from ICANN. BTW, FIFA operates under Swiss jurisdiction. ;-(((.
>>> 
>>> Wolfgang
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> :------Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von David Cake
>>> Gesendet: Fr 29.05.2015 09:06
>>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
>>> Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN/FIFA
>>> 
>>> Obviously those who are more familiar with ICANN and FIFA would probably point out that the parallels are really not very strong. They are both international organisations that are non-government, but otherwise they are very different. FIFA is an association of national associations, ICANN is not.
>>> 
>>> But it is a timely reminder for the need for strong accountability mechanisms. Which is probably why many of the ICANN engaged people on this list have been relatively quiet over the last year, as many of them have been involved either with the IANA transition (which has been very much concerned with structural accountability issues - how ICANN can be made responsible to those who, directly or indirectly, use IANA) or the accompanying accountability process (which is focussed on broader accountability issues with ICANN).
>>> (I myself have not been strongly involved with those processes, but I know Avri, Robin, Milton, and others have been spending many hours every week, which is probably why I sometimes have time to respond to cheap shots like this one).
>>> 
>>> But if you'd like a few lessons that might be drawn:
>>> direct voting on a national representative basis is absolutely no defence against corruption.
>>> From which we might presume that accountability and transparency are more important factors in preventing corruption. Perhaps JNC might consider shifting its focus from games about the word 'democracy' and focus on the practical push for the accountability and transparency mechanisms that are a vital part of any democratic process.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> 	David
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 29 May 2015, at 2:13 pm, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> As I watch along with I'm sure many others, the events consuming FIFA I am of course, reminded of the often made parallels between FIFA and ICANN, particularly in reference to proposed models for governance of global non-governmental organizations as for example in the area of accountability.
>>>> 
>>>> So, I'm wondering from among with those with far more knowledge concerning ICANN than myself, what lessons if any might one draw from what is being exposed concerning FIFA and how might that figure into what if anything will be an outcome of the current IANA transition discussions?
>>>> 
>>>> M
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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/20150529/672d759c/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