<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 28 May 2016 03:05 AM,
Pranesh Prakash wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5748BD99.6050407@cis-india.org" type="cite">Dear
Niels, Carolina, and all,
<br>
<br>
Niels ten Oever <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lists@digitaldissidents.org"><lists@digitaldissidents.org></a> [2016-05-25
17:03:53 +0200]:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">So I would have thought that Pranesh would
support efforts to ensure the
<br>
work of civil society in ICANN in general and the work of CIS in
<br>
specific, would make it's way through.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I beg to disagree: I don't feel the main concerns that CIS has
raised over the course of the transition have made any difference
whatsoever in the process.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
In the run up to the IANA transition, there were 3-4 meetings held
in India on this issue - most of them organised by groups quite
sympathetic to ICANN and involved with it (this included the dept of
IT, Indian gov). In all these meetings, without fail, the two key
issues that came out, and on which by far most people present
agreed, were (1) external oversight (meaning some kind of oversight
of ICANN processes from outside the groups closely involved in its
policy processes)) and (2) jurisdiction of ICANN. Both these issues
have been disregarded. <br>
<br>
India has one sixth of the global population. I have no doubt that
similar concerns would have been foremost in almost all developing
countries, and also most non US developed countries. <br>
<br>
Now when the process concludes claiming some kind of consensus, and
openness and inclusiveness of all views, one would obviously wonder
what to make of it. Who decides that most key views were included,
and the process was open. It was always some kind of a self
fulfilling prophecy, an article of incontrovertible faith - that
ICANN is open and inclusive, and it will considered open and
inclusive no matter what it does and what comes out of the process.
This is a new kind of tyranny, woven strangely from the fabric of a
so-called 'openness'. No doubt a fantastic achievement in a way. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5748BD99.6050407@cis-india.org" type="cite">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">There is a significant chance that the
transition might not go through,
<br>
and then the situation would be worse than what we have now, I
hope you
<br>
all agree with me on that.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't. While I strongly desire a transition; a transition that
doesn't change the status quo of US power over ICANN is going to
increase legitimacy without actually changing the status quo in
terms of power dynamics and the 'control' that the USG exercises
over ICANN and the global DNS.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">So indeed the process wasn't very clean,
but a proper process would not
<br>
have delivered the letter in time for the hearing, which would
have
<br>
defeated it's purpose. This is a way of getting more sign on
from
<br>
people, as well as discussion.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
+
<br>
<br>
Carolina Rossini <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:carolina.rossini@gmail.com"><carolina.rossini@gmail.com></a> [2016-05-25
11:14:22 -0400]:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I do not feel this went against the
procedures. We just fail to write an
<br>
email to the BB in a timely matter (when folks in Asia are
awaking and we
<br>
here are going to bed).
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Just to be clear: my problem wasn't really procedural. My problem
was substantive. CIS has done work on showing how the IANA
transition process has been highly skewed in terms of
participation, and I shared some of our research towards that end
in my initial e-mail to the group on this. (As to how this
affects substantive outcomes: Many other organizations and persons
from India and elsewhere (Rishabh Dara, JNC, CIS, CCG, Govt of
India, DSCI, etc.) raised the issue of jurisdiction as being
problematic u/ WS1 in their submissions to the ICG. However none
of those comments found appropriate reflection in the ICG report.)
<br>
<br>
However the drafters of this letter have suggested otherwise: "...
that the process to develop the transition proposal has been a
successful expression of multistakeholder approaches to Internet
decision-making". I believe the points countering Rubio, Heritage
Foundation, et al., could have been done without including lines
like that, which some of us following the IANA transition believe
was not the case.
<br>
<br>
Now, quite obviously, if I or CIS disagree with that, we needn't
sign it. I raised it on this list to make the drafters and
signatories aware that I *on substance* disagree with the contents
of that letter. Had the letter been discussed on the list (for
which there wasn't any time) I would have raise that disagreement
here.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">As you probably all have noticed it has
been terribly silent on the
<br>
BestBits list recently, so I hope that some positive action is
also
<br>
appreciated.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I posted this, asking for feedback from the BestBits list, and was
hoping for fruitful dialogue and a way forward collectively, but
received only one response (from Guru Acharya):
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/arc/bestbits/2016-04/msg00050.html">http://lists.bestbits.net/arc/bestbits/2016-04/msg00050.html</a>
<br>
<br>
I'm just as disappointed by the quiet as you are, Niels.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>