[At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination

Tue Aug 31 18:19:31 UTC 2010

ICANN is not pioneering a governance model.

IETF is!

ICANN was modeled on the governance model of IETF, which is a sort of meritocracy.

Go to an IETF meeting and you will better understand ICANN. The current Chairman of ICANN did, do like him.

The IGF is then modeled on IETF too...

In how the Internet works, it is coordinated at IEEE and IETF (ICANN and ARIN are registry functions mandated by IETF).
In how the Networks are connected, it is coordinated within the various NOG
Looking at fighting security issues on the Internet, it is coordinated by the various CERT.

Once you know at what tree to bark to, then there is less waste of resources...

----- Original Message -----
From: "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Sent: Wednesday, 1 September, 2010 1:10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination

Franck Martin wrote:
>>> Especially considering that these people were made to believe ITU
>>> was the one in(to be in) charge of these issues
>>>
>>>        
>> "Love ICANN, or you are ITU" :), wonder how a whole ideology and
>> practice of Internet Governance could so successfully be built around
>> a
>> single straw man.
>>
>>      
> Yes, that's what people think, that ICANN is in charge of everything on the Internet, while they are in charge of so little..
I agree ICANN is in charge of so little. And I really should not have 
much problem with anyone who is in charge of so little. In any case a 
good many things ICANN does, it does quite alright. So whats my problem 
with ICANN? Well, it is at two levels.

One, I keep trying to figure out who really is in charge of most of the 
things on the Internet? I am afraid many are going to jump with the 
reply - people or internet users,  which is simply not true. It is true 
that the Internet was once a network of tens of thousands of networks, 
and one could assume some kind of 'democracy' and diffusion of power vis 
a vis the Internet. Today Internet is largely the domain of a few 
mega-companies (even more so on the mobile Internet). So, it is these 
companies that are largely in control of the Internet, which is not 
something I like very much (even less than I may like ICANN :) ). So I 
really want some kind of good democratic global governance for IG.

But the question remains, why I dont like ICANN so much.

Because it is a pioneering model of a new form of global governance 
which I am afraid will spread to other aspects of Internet governance, 
and then, I am even more afraid, perhaps even to non-Internet related 
global issues. The problems with the global governance model that ICANN 
is pioneering are:

1. It considers it OK that the biggest power in the world, the US gov, 
has complete veto on all issues, and is largely able to set the overall 
political vision and agenda.

2. It is predominantly controlled by global mega-corporates, which in 
any case are emerging as the most powerful global players (and thus need 
governance/ regulation to rein in their power)

3. Private/ commercial interests are openly rated to be of much higher 
value in governance arrangements than non-commercial/ public interests, 
which is such a travesty of any governance structure that should 
completely be public interest based, excluding all parties with conflict 
of interest.

It is  a model of governance where the powerful negotiate issues among 
them, and the public is co-opted in best ways possible, to keep dissent 
under control. It is nightmare of a governance model, for a world which 
today has a histroy of democracy extending to a couple of centuries.

Then the question comes, why is ICANN model of global governance 
apparently so popular among powers-that-be, some of which are democratic 
countries and democratic societies (of the North).

Regrettably, I must state the reason thus (somewhat deliberatively 
provocatively): With an increasing and probably un-reinable level of 
economic and also social globalisation some enhanced levels of global 
polity (well, no one seems to like the word 'politics' or 'polity') or 
global governance is simply inescapable. But those in situations of 
considerable geo-economic and geo-political advantage just  dread the 
very idea of global democracy, for its expected egalitarian pull. 
Promoting ICANN kind of gov models, touted under more acceptable labels 
like of multi-stakeholderism, is the response of the globally powerful. 
And they are so powerful, that they are able to rig the discourse to 
their advantage, and make things they promote out of keen self interest 
appear as perfectly natural and smelling of all the goodness of this world.

Parminder

> .
>
>    
>>      
>>> Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question
>>>
>>>        
>> Have just no idea what this means. Why would you not use English in
>> response to an English posting. I have barely learnt passable English
>> as
>> a third language. Apologies for it but I could not indulge my
>> linguistic
>> faculties any further to acquaint myself with French expressions even
>> if
>> they may get stylistically used in superior English :) . Parminder
>>
>>      
> LOL
>
> Someone will translate for you, I'm sure... ;) It is my signature when I'm on the move... nothing specific to this thread, but now thinking of it....
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org