[WSIS CS-Plenary] Civil Society Priorities Document

Tue Jul 15 16:51:04 BST 2003

Like others who have commented here, I have been active in the ICANN policy 
process for many years.  Our efforts to realize grassroots civil society 
participation in ICANN and to make a constructive contribution to its 
processes was vigorously resisted by the interests controlling the 
organization.  Following the infamous ICANN coup d'etat of last year, ICANN 
created a very weak user organization.  Most civil society representatives 
were excluded (myself included.)  In the future, as the interests 
controlling ICANN become more secure, their need for even symbolic 
participation by civil society interests will likely decline.  So I don't 
have much confidence in that institution.

While I don't wholeheartedly endorse the ITU as a replacement for ICANN, I 
do welcome the competition between these two institutions.  The most 
promising scenario that I can see is Internet governance split between 
ICANN and the ITU.  That is quite feasible: ICANN could make global policy 
for generic domains (e.g. dot-com), and the ITU can coordinate policy for 
country code domains (e.g. dot-us).  Users would have a choice between 
which regime they favored.

Separation of powers is a well-established principle of governance: "...the 
great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the 
same department consists in giving to those who administer each department 
the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist 
encroachments of the others. ... Ambition must be made to counteract 
ambition." (James Madison, "Federalist 51", 1790)

So back to our document: If our current language implicitly favors the ITU, 
that seems appropriate.  It is in the interest of civil society to support 
ITU to the point where it might join ICANN in Internet governance.

Hans Klein
Director, CPSR's Civil Society Democracy Project (CivSoc of CPSR)
See: http://www.civsoc.org

At 12:48 PM 7/14/2003 +0200, artur wrote:
>  I suport the Adam's suggestion  to  delete  the  paragraph.
>The Civil Society Priorities should include the priorities of its members
>organizations.
>I  understand that  Adam speaks  in  the name of the civil society part  of
>ICANN. The respect of  each of the Civil Society voices  and expertises will
>facilitate the voices of all
>
>If  you want  to  include  some paragraph in  relation with  "the current
>management of Internet names and numbers
>and other related mechanisms"  you could indicate  that   "the  role of the
>civil society should be reinforce in  the  current mechanisms in light of
>serving public interests and compatibility with human rights standards."
>
>Regards
>Artur Serra
>UPC, Barcelona
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>To: <plenary at wsis-cs.org>; <ct at wsis-cs.org>
>Cc: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; <bkleinwaechter at web.de>; <izumi at anr.org>;
><schock at asc.upenn.edu>
>Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:36 AM
>Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Civil Society Priorities Document
>
>
> > The paragraph should be deleted.
> >
> > ICANN is far from perfect. It's policy making structures are not as
> > open as we would like. I've been involved in "Internet Governance"
> > for 6 or 7 years. Izumi and I were members of the only consistent
> > civil society effort that tried to defend the right to election and
> > direct representation -- so please do not think I am some kind of
> > ICANN apologist.
> >
> > While ICANN is not the organization we hoped it would be, its policy
> > making processes are quite open to Civil Society (certainly compared
> > to the alternatives.)  We can and do have a direct influence (I know,
> > I've done it.) And recent changes to ICANN policy making processes
> > indicate that there will be more opportunities in the future, not
> > less.  If we were in a debating hall I would be more than happy to
> > stand up and list problems with ICANN.
> >
> > But this week, all this is besides the point. It's not the issue.  We
> > are here reacting to an effort by some governments to take control of
> > Internet naming and addressing.  They believe they should have
> > sovereign rights not only to TLDs but to IP address allocation and to
> > control of the root server system (read the working documents and
> > contributions.) Other governments want to see these functions become
> > the responsibility of an "inter-governmental organization." It is
> > quite clear that the organization they are thinking of is the ITU.
> >
> > What's at stake this week is very simple. Will the draft documents
> > support the status quo, ICANN? Or will they support change? By asking
> > for "re-examination" we will support change. Governments like Syria
> > will take us as supporting their efforts. Governments and the ITU
> > will use our words to their advantage. There is no plan C.  There is
> > nothing other than the two options.  If you want to risk supporting
> > ITU and government control of Internet naming and addressing, leave
> > the paragraph in place.
> >
> > I very strongly request that **the paragraph should be deleted.**
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> > At 9:58 PM -0400 7/13/03, Sasha Costanza-Chock wrote:
> > >I'm not so sure, Adam...do you feel that the current management of
>internet
> > >names and addresses is the best system for allocating what is essentially
>a
> > >global commons, in the public interest? If so, please explain why a
> > >byzantine structure like ICANN, geared towards corporate needs, is the
>best
> > >system. If not, it seems entirely appropriate to raise the question.
> > >
> > >sasha costanza-chock
> > >
> > >
> > >>From: Adam Peake
> > >>I request that the following paragraph be deleted from the Civil
> > >>Society Priorities Document:
> > >
> > >> >"To these ends, the current management of Internet names and numbers
> > >and other related mechanisms should be re-examined with the full
> > >participation of all stakeholders in light of serving public
> > >interests and compatibility with human rights standards."
>
> > >It can only serve to support the arguments of governments that wish
> > >to gain control over Internet resource allocation, and others hoping
> > >to see the ITU or some other inter-governmental organization take
> > >control of Internet naming and addressing.
> > >
> > >It should be deleted.
> > >
> > >Kind regards,
> > >
> > >Adam Peake
> > >GLOCOM Tokyo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Plenary mailing list
> > >Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> > >http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Plenary mailing list
> > >Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> > >http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
> >
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > Plenary mailing list
> > Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary