[CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update

[Pranesh Prakash]

John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> [2016-08-13 16:52:23 -0500]:
> On Aug 13, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>>
>> John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> [2016-08-08 06:56:12 -0400]:
>>>    ICANN by its function is not a "public governance body” - it is actually a coordination
>>>    body that supports the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s various
>>>    identifier systems.
>>
>> Dear John,
>> It is not a mere "coordination body".  It sets policies, which a "coordination body" would not do.
>
> Incorrect.  There are coordination bodies for a wide range of activities
> that also set policies, standards, and charge fees.  Some examples
> include technical standards/coordination bodies for Bluetooth, USB,
> data center/open interconnection standards,  etc.

Those are standards-setting bodies.  Those of us who study patents (and 
especially patent pools) believe that they too wield power, and are 
important governance actors.  They aren't mere "coordination" bodies.

> The coordination of Internet identifiers (like domain names) may be a
> much more visible activity to the public, but that does not change the
> inherent nature of the function - it is about coordination of a reliable
> and secure system of unique identifiers, not about governing anyone
> or anything.

One doesn't understand why you are so opposed to the label "governance" 
here.  If one goes by the definition of "Internet governance" that 
emerged from the WGIG ("Internet governance is the development and 
application of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making 
procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the 
Internet.") then ICANN clearly engages in Internet governance.

>You are not governed by your use of USB connector, but
> benefit from the coordination which underlies same.

There is a difference between "governing" and "being governed by", which 
you are eliding here.
Nevertheless: There are multiple competing standards for the USB.  There 
is only one canonical set of domain names.  Even if you believe that 
ICANN only does "coordinating" (it emphatically doesn't), it's 
"coordination" definitely leads to my being governed by my ISP's choice 
to use ICANN-recognized root servers.

>>  Setting down policies with regard to trademarks and domain names, for instance, is not mere "coordination", imho.
>
> Yes, you have made plain your opinion already.
>
>> It is a regulator: it taxes, it regulates, and it engages in governance.[1]
>
> Whereas I would say it is a coordination body - one which sets policies
> and charges various fees related to Internet identifiers.  The bylaws and
> articles of incorporation would also suggest a similar characterization
> of ICANN (to the extent that you consider them at all germane to the
> discussion...)

I disagree with your characterisation.  Still, I hope you'll agree with 
me when I note that the more monopoly and power a coordination body 
holds, then more it engages in a "governance" function.  (A 
nation-state, even a minimalist one, after all, is a "coordination body 
- one that sets polices and charges various fees related to national 
affairs", but also a governance body.)

Regards,
Pranesh

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
https://twitter.com/pranesh

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160814/be681492/signature.asc>