[MemberPubPol] [chapter-delegates] FYI - in the coming discussion of the WGIG questionnaire

[Patrick Vande Walle]

Fred Baker wrote:

> Let me remind you of the statement of mine that opened this discussion:
>
>On Jun 7, 2005, at 11:54 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>  
>
>>I need an argument that points out issues with the current 
>>structure - ICANN, RIRs, registrars and registries, etc etc etc and 
>>demonstrates that none of those problems would have happened if ICANN 
>>had been a treaty organization and no new problems would have 
>>materialized, or that there was a way to definitively handle new 
>>problems that might arise.
>>    
>>
Fred, let me try again.

For good and not so good reasons, governements want to have something to 
say about how the Internet is running. ICANN and its constituencies 
which have the voting rights  (GNSO, CCNSO, ASO) are all made of private 
sector actors. Governements and end users (GAC and ALAC) have only an 
advisory role. The legitimacy of the private sector when it comes to 
matters pertaining to national sovereignty is inexistent.

In which matters do the governements want to have  something to say ? 
Culture, language, intellectual property and ethical values to name a 
few. Some examples:
Would governements have agreed to .XXX ? Many countries find it is 
against their culture and/or their ethical values.
IDNs : for many countries which do not use the 7-bit ASCII to write 
their language (most of the world), this is high on the agenda. 
Implementing IDNs natively in applications may not be a priority for the 
private sector, as this does have a cost while the return on investment 
is not guaranteed in the short term.

Currently, there is  little organized multilateralism or geographic 
diversity within ICANN, and none at all in the IETF  and other existing 
I* structures. The private sector does have shortcomings. Its agenda is 
based on the priorities of  the industry, which is in turn driven by its 
shareholders.  The governments and the end users have another agenda. We 
need a forum where we can match both agendas.

The question is not if the current structures did something wrong. It is 
more how we can improve the current structures to make them more 
inclusive, especially to non-insiders.

I do not focus, as you do, on a "treaty" organization. AFAIK, the 
International Red Cross or the International Olympics Committee are 
treaty organizations in the strict sense. They are nevertheless seen as 
independent of any government..

Patrick