Some comments on WGIG nominees

[Milton Mueller]

My comments on three of the names put forward so far:
Wilson, Drake, Wong

>>> Adam Peake <ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP> 8/21/2004 1:31:36 AM >>>
>And I have said nothing about Paul Wilson,
>(who I think would be a very strong WGIG member),

Adam, as you know I put Wilson's name on our list. But I did so
knowing that you supported him and that Jeanette Hoffman,
the other IGC co-chair, believes very strongly in him.

The only possible objection to Paul is that APNIC is an industry
association. One might then think that he is not "civil society"
in the same sense as we are, and that the private sector
(business) interests should be responsible for getting him on if
he has support from that sector. However, the counterargument
is that ISPs are core to Internet governance, the technical
expertise he holds is critical, and his policy positions are not bad.
If industry and civil society can agree on a name, it is better, no?

However, I have this concern: two other key people of the Regional
Internet Address registries have now been nominated. (Pindar
Wong was with APNIC, and was elected to the ICANN Board
by the RIRs) and Raul Echeberria, CEO of LACNIC. Whatever the merits
of these three men, I believe it would be a bit strange for a
noncommercial/
civil society process to advance all three of those names. I will
give my own comments on Pindar Wong below.

>Bill Drake (who has made v. important contributions to WSIS civil
>society on ICT governance, understands the ICT for development
>aspects

I know Bill well. He is part of my world, an academic political
scientist
with a good knowledge of global governance processes. His strength
is in traditional telecom institutions like ITU and trade in telecomm
services
in the WTO. "ICT for development" has never been one of his research
areas and he doesn't spend time in developing countries, so don't
oversell
him there Adam. He is smart and creative and would be very vocal. He is

just as undiplomatic as Karl Auerbach, he is reknowned for his
directness.
(Might be interesting for Adam to explain the double standard here.)

I have two problems with Bill. One is that he has had real trouble
grasping
and accepting the importance of ICANN as a governance model,
and the importance of the ICANN issue in the creation of the WGIG.
He has never attended an ICANN meeting, and his technical knowledge
of Internet is weak. As late as December 2003 he was insisting that
the WSIS Internet Governance Caucus rename itself the "Global ICT
Governance" caucus because Internet governance was so "narrow and
unimportant."

The other is that I think the other two No. American nominees are
preferable. I think that Susan Crawford has given much more thought
to the broad range of IG issues, and that Pam Samuelson
has a much better grasp of the central IPR issues, and so would prefer

the other names for North America over him. But I would not consider
him
unacceptable.

Re: Pindar Wong - I am surprised to see him nominated by Norbert.
Pindar is a very smart man. He pioneered the ISP industry in Hong
Kong (and cleverly sold off the business just before the rush
of competition made it unprofitable). He was an ICANN Board
member appointed by the ASO. He was a key figure in the formation
of the Asia Internet Association, an ISP trade association. Pindar is
the consummate insider. He fulfills all the criteria that Adam thinks
Karl
Auerbach doesn't have: he won't rock the boat, he will be diplomatic,
he will make insider deals. The problem is, there is no real nexus with

the values and principles of this constituency. I've known him and
watched
him for years and I don't know what he believes on policy issues; he
seems
to be a pure pragmatist. He is a businessman. He has personal
integrity. But
I do not see how he can be expected to represent or give voice to the
values
and policies favored by civil society in a global process. And I don't
think
he would be answerable to civil society; I think his identity as a
businessman
and insider would override other considerations, although I do think he
would
make an effort to communicate with us.

--MM