<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi,<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I want to respond to this and offer, perhaps, a second point of view.</DIV><DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On 6 nov 2005, at 03.13, Parminder wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; ">It is more surprising because WGIG was a more of a deliberating body and is an expired body, while</SPAN><O:P style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "><O:P style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "> </SPAN></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; ">(1) ICANN is a major player in the present IG and of course an interested party in the IG negotiations</SPAN><O:P style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; ">(2) ICANN on various points has stated its position on WSIS IG negotiations.</SPAN><O:P style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "> </SPAN><O:P style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; ">Hence one can expect anyone who is closely associated with ICANN to move only within a given spectrum of positions on IG.</SPAN><O:P style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "><O:P style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "> </SPAN></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "> So, it makes me really wonder why association with ICANN did not even figure in this discussion on caucus representative-ness. I think it is because many take an ICANN or ICANN-like position, by default, as a CS position on IG. This is very problematic. I want to insist that this is a narrow view, which comes from keeping the discussions within a charmed circle. It doesn’t help to say … ‘well the processes are open, why do not other people with different viewpoints participate’...</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><DIV>I think once has to take a look at why people are involved with ICANN. Most of them have becomes involved since the start of the WSIS project. Speaking for myself, I am interested in bringing CS IG input into ICANN as opposed to the other way around. Before WSIS/WGIG, while I knew ICANN was there, I never had an interest in getting involved. On seeing how much there was to be done, and on coming to a personal conclusion that one needs to work both from the inside and the outside, I decided to get involved.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>True I have to acknowledge that being invovled with ICANN does color my viewpoint as I have to understand the viewpoint of others involved in ICANN, but I do not believe it pollutes it or that it removes those who do engage with ICANN from CS. And I think you may some some in ICANN who agree with the structure of your argument as they believe that no one involved in WSIS CS can be trusted in ICANN as we are suspected of having anti ICANN views that are dangerous to ICANN.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>At lot of discussion has gone done, in CS, in WSIS /WGIG about replacing ICANN. The consensus, the global consensus, seems to be that this will not happen, at least not in the near term. that leave us with the option of working to change ICANN or disengaging. I consider both options valid, if one is opposed to ICANN in its totality, they should oppose it. but if one believes that changes can be made and that those changes could improve things for transparency, openness, multistakeholderism and for internet users globally, then it makes sense to be engaged in both CS IG and ICANN.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Of course, if there is rough consensus in the IGC that membership in some other organization disqualifies one from participation, then that will be another story. I do hope we don't down that exclusionary route, however, as once we start excluding one type of person we might get carried away with the number of people we want to exclude.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>a.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>