<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 77.95pt 1.0in 77.95pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:783578878;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1811448440 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Dear All, <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> I followed the discussions on media representation for the IG
caucus with a lot of interest. I personally am not for very stringent
conditions for this purpose – and I expect that any chosen person will
recognize that she or he can only represent the group’s view and not
their individual view. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>However, I am intrigued by the fact that while the discussion took a
very precautionary view of what may or may not be appropriate, beginning with a
discussion with ‘whether being a WGIG member should be a
disqualifier’, or having a ‘government badge’ is problematic,
and later even issues such as ‘whether being associated with the
‘IG project’ with some known viewpoints’ itself can cast a
shadow on appropriateness for the position’…..<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><b><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>….however, no one spoke of
whether having a close relationship with/ position in ICANN can be considered
problematic for this purpose. <o:p></o:p></span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>It is more surprising because WGIG was a more of a deliberating body
and is an expired body, while <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>(1) ICANN is a major player in the present IG and of course an
interested party in the IG negotiations <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>(2) ICANN on various points has stated its position on WSIS IG
negotiations. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Hence one can expect anyone who is closely associated with ICANN to move
only within a given spectrum of positions on IG. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> 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’... <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>If we mean to view IG caucus as even somewhat representative of IG view
of CS at WSIS; and CS at WSIS as at least trying to be representative of the
wider global civil society, we need to actually reach out to many more views. <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>We need to know how civil society has looked at issues
of ‘privatized governance’ in global policy matters in areas
outside IG.</span></b> And IG is not an isolated issue; it is connected to, and
has implications for many other issues, and it concerns the whole world and its
governance.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>In the last few months, my organization has been strongly involved in
advocacy on gender and Information society issues in the context of WSIS. Just
last week, <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>grave concerns over moves towards
‘private governance’ (including IG) and its implications on
women’s interests were raised at the year’s biggest meeting of
feminist activists at the AWID conference at Bangkok (2000 feminist
participated over four days of deliberations), as also at the Asia Pacific
regional conference of Gender Caucus of WSIS, also held at Bangkok. In fact we
did not hear one voice in support of ‘privatizing governance’.</span></b>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>And all these participants are long standing civil society actors with
close connections laterally across the civil society community and with grassroots
movements. Do their views count? And let us not just blame them for not being
at WSIS and involved with IG list discussions…. That would be too
simplistic.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> ICANN is fond of speaking about the ‘internet
community’ – and I had argued in my last email that, today there is
no specific Internet community – everyone is (or needs to be) impacted by
the internet – hence the world community is the Internet community. We
can not have representativeness defined by who spends more hours on the
keyboard on connected computers. This description of the constituency of IG is
not a peripheral issue, it is THE issue here. But I find no one responding to
my poser on this narrow conception of ‘internet community’, (rather
the very irrelevance of this term in this context) which is at the basis of
ICANN’s claims of legitimacy. (And we know that ICANN’s processes
are vastly inadequate even to call it representative of its own conception of
the internet community). <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> And with people associated with ICANN dominating the IG caucus,
it can be expected that the views that will emerge from the IG caucus will be
on a narrow band – articulating positions somewhere between status quo
ICANN to a reformed ICANN. The present draft only confirms this. And it is not
at all acceptable.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>I will put forward comments on the specific language in the draft in
another email. Let me discuss here only the tactical/strategic issues
implicated in taking the position proposed by the present draft.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>At present <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>there are only three
positions on the table – and negotiations will take place around them</span></b>.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><font
size=2 face=Symbol><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>·<font size=1 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></font></span></span></font><![endif]>US position – status quo
– with cosmetic tinkering to placate opposition <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><font
size=2 face=Symbol><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>·<font size=1 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></font></span></span></font><![endif]>EU position - beginning from
the basic position that the oversight functions with the US at present has to
go, to an inter-governmental system and building alternatives from this basic
position that ensure agreed basic objectives on IG – including full
precautions against ad-hoc interference in day-to-day functioning of IG <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><font
size=2 face=Symbol><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>·<font size=1 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></font></span></span></font><![endif]>EU+ positions – all
positions which may want to go beyond EU position. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>So the position as circulated in the draft, will only lend support to
the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region></st1:place>
position. US will be able to say that WSIS CS is also close to our position. No
one at the negotiations would seriously consider non-government actors
performing oversight functions on their own; since oversight is a very
political function (any political scientist will tell you this). <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> Many in the CS are apt to read ‘Political’ as
‘bad’ – NO, it is - Political as ‘ management of
contested interests between different groups and sections’ – and it
is easy to depoliticize issues when one group has shared interests and a
world-view, and it then becomes convenient to take that as the apolitical obvious
position that suits all. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Parminder <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>