Re: [npoc-voice] Observations on the two governance issues facing ICANN

[Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji@xxxxxxx>]

Hello Sam,

Your observations are very welcomed and thoughtful, I belief that ICANN and
ITU can have a symbiotic relationship to work together in achieving a good
balance and a form of inclusiveness for all. within a global context

I say this because when you look at the overall IGF structure a lot of the
key players have a role and constituency to push their agendas within ICANN
and that especially applies to us in NPOC.

In terms of ITU I think from my observation at the recently WCIT in Dubai
where a lot of civil society groups, NGO's plunged themselves within
country delegations and where allowed to do so by those countries notably
especially in European countries, the USA and some African countries like
the Gambia, Kenya, Benin and Nigeria shows there is a way forward in
getting ITU to see the global picture and it was not surprising the ITU
president met with Civil Society to hear what they had to say and member
states noted the full presence of cvivil society at the forum.

ITU comprises  member states who  have their own concerns within the global
structure of overall "Internet Governance" its difficult to apply what
applies in "Rome" to say like the "Gambia", because in as much governance
of the Internet brings about a lot of issues at a global level, we have to
accept that some countries are naturally conservative in certain aspects
and will remain so for the foreseeable future based on those countries
cultural orientation and history.

For example with the Arab spring, I have a good Tunisian friend a Muslim he
runs a hotel and pub within the touristic area of Tunis, under Ben Ali he
had liberty and his Business flourished, however with the Arab Spring, now
Tunisia is lead by a mainly Islamic party, in  his Hotel and Pub, "Beer and
Wine bottles"  have been broken and destroyed more often in fact thrice
during the Christmas season, because some  few radicals belief now as a
Muslim he should not sell Alcohol the funny thing these same same radicals
do not target the European owned businesses.  As I told my friend yes Ben
Ali was bad for the majority of Tunisians. but also it shows that majority
of the Tunisians who voted the Islamist party to government are
conservative and with time they will understand that his business is a
business irrespective of his religion and real liberty means a true
understanding and respect of others views and opinions and in some
societies this have been non existent and as such it will take time to be
entrenched in those societies because only few really knew in those
societies.  Due to the fact that  certain freedoms in parts of the world
that freedom of expression  was unknown has now  come at a price and a lot
of ignorance and illiteracy still exist in those societies its important to
note that it will  take time to change win totally minds and hearts for
those who really did not know the difference between "A and B" before and
that applies too to the Internet in terms of governance.

Some  school of thought expect certain countries to change overnight ,
forgetting even in the United States to achieve civil liberties for all was
really a long long  struggle, and also if you look at the average age of
independent states in developing countries none is yet 100 years as an
Independent nation, So personally to me this is the main issue, a lot of
great successes are expected at times forgetting that certain nations are
still in "paranoid mode" because their mode of governance seem outdated as
of today, however this will change through a  generational process when
these nations start been ruled by the "digital natives" of their respective
countries, that is those born in the Internet era  say early  1990's on
wards.


I decided to mention this when you look at for instance what certain
African countries like Algeria where fighting for in terms of security at
the WCIT , its based on their history, remembering that this same Algerian
government that certain nations felt their request was outrageous kept
silent when the Algerian government  refused to allow an Islamist party in
the late 90's to govern the country when that party won legitimately an
election, because the Algerian regime felt the status quo will change, and
that fear exist today in a lot of closed "Nations" the Arab spring has
shown democracy is a process that builds up step by step and that's what
the Egyptian government are realizing today, so this will certainly apply
in the overall governance structure of the Internet.

Hence in conclusion, I belief that the processes that ICANN has started
today will follow a process that will stand the test of time and make
member states clamoring for  ITU to play a key role in governance of the
Internet to realise that in all we do  ICANN has its key roles to play and
so does the ITU.  To bridge certain divides, its the biggest challenge of
ICANN that's why constituencies like NPOC have to reach out more to those
in developing countries in Africa, Asia, the middle east etc so that does
who do not know are advocated and learn to  know better.  This in turn will
make their governments more active in ICANN GAC and other constituencies
that are relevant towards the overall Internet Ecosystem of their
respective countries.  The fact that member states see ITU forums like WCIT
of great importance based on the number of years ITU has existed shows
ICANN has a lot to do in terms of reaching out and this is the challenge of
a constituency  like ours to help support this process.in making it
achieveable.  Its a long road, but we should realize "Rome" was not built
in a day, and the more time we spend to agree and disagree and place
processes in place for all to feel comfortable the better the chances of a
true multi stake holder approach to the governance of the Internet
remembering also that we have to respect the wishes of nations sovereignty
which a lot of nations not by design but history have to be allowed to
evolve into the norm of today in terms of overall governance in general.

Again Sam, thanks for your thoughtful observations.

Have a great weekend all.

Peace

Poncelet







On 11 January 2013 14:52, Sam Lanfranco <Lanfran@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Observations on the two governance issues facing ICANN
> - Sam Lanfranco (January 2013)
>
> Preface:
> These comments were first written in discussion with Marie-laure
> Lemineur and Alain Berranger.
>
> Marie-Laure and Alain have commented on some points and suggested that
> the comments be posted to npoc-voice for wider discussion.
>
> Marie-Laure will post her comments after I have posted these. The
> discussion serves as a background to a paper I am writing on the
> meaning and challenges of a multi-stakeholder governance model.
>
> -------------- Two Governance Issues facing ICANN ------------
>
> I am first sending this to you privately because I want some feedback.
> I am always aware of the limitations of being a new person in a group
> dealing with important issues, and always aware of the challenge of
> understanding things in context, and scope for misunderstanding
> certain elements and aspects of what is going on. Hence, I would like
> some feedback on the following comments.
>
> As I dig deeper into the issues and challenges facing ICANN and the
> global governance of the Internet I see two intertwined issues. I
> will just sketch out the bare bones here in the interests of not
> burdening you with details.
>
>  One issue is the heart of the struggle over the governance of the
> Internet, and that issue is control over governance as between ICANN
> and ITU. The drivers for that struggle come from several sources, the
> most obvious being the interests and wishes of ITU member states to
> have more formal control over the Internet. The issues of freedom of
> speech, access to information and human rights are often cited here,
> although many have observed that member states routinely exercise
> that control in any event. Observe how China closed down online
> discussion on the recent terrible rape/murder case in India, because
> commentators were using the episode to talk about the lack of
> openness in the discussion of Chinese issues. Since nation states
> exercise this power now, and are relatively immune to external
> criticism, a case might be made for arguing that the primary
> interests of many nation states have more to do with matters of trade
> and intellectual property than they do human rights and freedom of
> expression, matters that require international agreement rather than
> just sanctioned national behaviour.
>
> Much of the global interest still exists as a “global commons” with
> elements to be beneficially controlled by interested stakeholders
> that rely on state power, in particular, governments themselves, and
> commercial interests. Civil society stakeholders frequently have a
> mixed and complication relationship with both government and
> business. As a result, national Internet control struggles are likely
> to persist and, as a consequence, they raise the stakes on who should
> govern what as between ICANN and the ITU. It is easy to see why
> nation states can have a preferential option for ITU. It is made up
> of member states, member states heavily influences by commercial
> interests. This gives the two of them an upper hand. Lastly, I would
> not dismiss the extent to which the ITU has had to re-invent itself
> as cellular phone technology displace regulated telephone companies
> and their negotiated global tariff structures.
>
>  There is a second dimension to the governance issue, one over which
> civil society organizations hold some sway. The other issue of
> governance has to do with the internal models of governance within
> ICANN and the ITU themselves. At the simplest level, ICANN is a U.S.
> based not-for-profit organization with a multi-stakeholder governance
> model, and with shortcomings with respect to the extent and equity of
> stakeholder participation. The ITU has a international member state
> governance model, with virtual exclusion of other Internet
> stakeholder constituencies except through their influence on the
> positions of member states. ITU has tried to open up a bit to civil
> society. The IGF is an example, as well as is the attempt to
> facilitate the participation by civil society in the WCIT. But many
> think these are more “cosmetic” that substantial.
>
> I see several challenges here, and several possible scenarios, with
> risky outcomes. As far as ICANN is concerned it can strengthen its
> multi-stakeholder governance model with increased and better more
> representative participation of civil society (NPO/NGO) members and
> from regions of the world (e.g. Africa). It also has to worry about
> “better more representative participation” by other stakeholder
> constituencies. But, and this is a big “but”, at the global level it
> is still just a U.S. based not-for-proft organization. It does not
> exist as a result of international agreements and as a result remains
> vulnerable.
>
> The way forward here is not at all clear. It would appear that a
> desirable multi-stakeholder model of ICANN governance cannot, in and
> of itself, address the  fundamental problem of the absence of a
> structure of  national agreements within which nation states sanction
> the work of ICANN.
>
> The above issue of ICANN and the nation state is further complicated
> by two considerations. The first is if ICANN moved toward a
> multi-party nation state component as part of an expanded
> multi-stakeholder model, what is to prevent the current divisions and
> struggles between countries within the ITU from simply migrating to
> ICANN.
>
> The second is less obvious. The current structure of the ITU has been
> seen at not conducive to meaningful participation by civil society
> organizations. In response those self-same civil society
> organizations are pressing ITU to move closer to a multi-stakeholder
> participatory model, even if still a long way from a
> multi-stakeholder governance model. This is a rational response on
> the part of civil society organizations. First, ITU has national
> government membership. That offers a venue in which civil society can
> to some extent dialogue with nation states. It also hedges civil
> society bets with regard to what will constitute the respective
> policy domains of ICANN and the ITU.
>
> Here is another concern. Is there likelihood that as ITU makes
> incremental concessions to open up a more multi-stakeholder
> participatory model, this will be used against ICANN? Is there the
> risk of an argument that says the ITU, as an international agency
> with country membership and a growing multi-stakeholder participatory
> model, is making ICANN and its multi-stakeholder governance model
> increasingly redundant? Could this be used to challenge the
> justification for preserving ICANN’s mandate? Is there a risk that
> the ITU country membership base will offer a more promising avenue
> for civil society to press its interests?
>
> It is my view that wherever things are headed, there are two important
> items on the “hot button” agenda. One is the scope for serious
> continuous, possibly very open and transparent, talks between ICANN
> and the ITU about areas of mutual interest and areas of
> complementarity. The other, and more important, is a deeper
> understanding of, and a refined strategy for, what ICANN embraces as
> a strengthened multi-stakeholder model.
>
> In a real sense, just as the global virtual spaces of the Internet
> move society into uncharted territory, building a robust and
> sustainable global multi-stakeholder model moves ICANN into exciting,
> if equally uncharted, global territory.
>
> Do I have misplaced worries here? I would appreciate your views and
> insights? Are there other areas where I should more profitably worry?
> I already have on my plate looking at approaches to broader and deeper
> constituency presence in an ICANN multi-stakeholder governance model.
>
> Sam Lanfranco
>



-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
*www.ymca.gm
www.waigf.org
www.aficta.org
www.itag.gm
www.npoc.org
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
*www.diplointernetgovernance.org

*
*