Re: [ga] WSIS workshop announcement

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Twomey, in his address to the Registrar constituency this afternoon,
also expressed his concern about the case being made for a UN Agency to take
over some of the functions of ICANN - he derided their lack of technical
expertise, and insisted that management at a governmental level would be the
wrong way for the Internet to proceed.

It has to be said - setting aside the cogent arguments for a market-driven
approach to governance - that ICANN's position is substantially undermined
(a) by the fact that it is primarily a US agency, answerable to DoC, giving
the US a primacy which many other countries regard as unnatural in the
context of a world resource; and (b) by the fact that ICANN is clearly
underfunded, and policies like the evaluation and roll-out of New TLDs are
being seriously delayed by lack of staffing and lack of resources.

A UN-backed ITU governance would, at least, not be using staff and financial
shortages as an excuse for holding up the development of the namespace.

The other factor which undermines ICANN's position is the perception of many
that it is opaque in its management methods, unresponsive to criticism,
autocratic at the centre, and fundamentally unaccountable to anyone except
USG (who backs ICANN in its own wider interests).

The governance of the Internet may be driven towards the UN / ITU by ICANN's
own inept record and mismanagement. This would not be perceived as in the
interests of USG, which should therefore be "setting its own house in order"
before calls for a UN agency reach governmental level.

If USG provides the added funding which ICANN badly needs, then ICANN comes
to be perceived more clearly as a state-funded quango working for a single
national paylord. Alternatively, I've no doubt agencies within the US are
already planning to use the cover of "security" to re-organise net
governance, and organise ICANN (as we know it) out of the equation. A
genuine or an 'orchestrated' attack on the system would provide USG with the
pretext it needs to break cover and lay claim to the control of the net.

What we have at present is a bit of a 'Mickey Mouse' quango, operating from
a few offices, underfunded, and not keeping up with its tasks... ITU or an
equivalent version waits in the wings if ICANN cannot set things in order,
and, alas, Paul Twomey's 'staffing re-organisations' will not be enough...
what is needed is culture change and added funding and staff (I know some
people will say, no, limit the mission to a narrow technical role - but I
just think we're in a less simple more interactive world).

...

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 6:12 PM
Subject: [ga] WSIS workshop announcement


> PATHS FOR THE FUTURE
> An overview of discussions from the WSIS
>
> October 29th, 2003 (Wednesday)
> 4:00pm - 6:00pm
> Carthage Palace Hotel
> Room Carthage 4
>
> During the preparatory meetings for the United Nations' World Summit on
the
> Information Society, some governments have started to call for more
> traditional, inter-governmental ways to administer the Internet,
especially
> targeting on the international management of root servers, Domain Name
> system, and IP Address assignment. They claim that while "technical
matters"
> can be managed by the private sector, ie ICANN, the "public policy issues"
> should be handled by inter-governmental organizations, suggesting ITU.
>
> Is the principle of private-public partnership under discussion again?
Can
> it really match the challenges of the global Internet and resist to
> pressures?
>
> The At Large Advisory Committee will organize an informational session
about
> what is happening in Geneva and what is going to happen after Geneva to
> Tunisia in 2005. So ICANN is to persuade governments that they can handle
> the public policy matters in open and transparent manner - but how?
Perhaps
> the At Large, through a more substantial role for the individual users
than
> the one in the current framework, could help to reach this objective.
>
> After a report about the discussions and controversies that have
> characterized the last WSIS Preparatory meetings in July in Paris and
> September in Geneva, panelists from different constituencies will discuss
> what they think is right and what is wrong about the different Internet
> governance models that are on the table, and how the gap between the
> different views could be bridged.
> --
> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...
>
>