<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" 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)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* 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
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap: break-word;
-khtml-nbsp-mode: space;-khtml-line-break: after-white-space'>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>>>>></span></font> 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.>>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I am speaking of the issue of oversight of ICANN and not of replacing
ICANN. Lets not confuse these two issues. Even if ICANN oversight moves to an
inter-governmental system with adequate CS participation, ICANN will still need
a lot of reforming. So it is great to press for and associate with such reform.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>So the question is not of my opposing ICANN, I instead oppose ICANN
arrogating oversight functions - that are of political nature – to itself.
And there is a big difference between ICANN doing resource allocation etc
functions under necessary oversight – and ICANN doing public policy
function which ‘no oversight’ over ICANN will imply. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Parminder <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Avri Doria
[mailto:avri@psg.com] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Sunday, November 06, 2005
9:31 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Parminder<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> 'WSIS Internet Governance
Caucus'<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [governance] Present
draft does not consider 'real oversight options'</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Hi,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I want to respond to this and offer, perhaps, a second point of view.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>On 6 nov 2005, at 03.13, Parminder wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span class=apple-style-span><font size=2 color=black
face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:black'><span style='border-spacing: 0px 0px;text-align:auto;-khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-apple-text-size-adjust: auto;orphans: 2;widows: 2;word-spacing:0px'>It is more
surprising because WGIG was a more of a deliberating body and is an expired
body, while<O:P style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "></O:P></span></font></span><font
size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span class=apple-style-span><O:P style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Courier New";color:black'> </O:P></span></font></span><font size=1
color=black face=Helvetica><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span class=apple-style-span><font size=2 color=black
face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:black'>(1) ICANN is a major player in the present IG and of course an
interested party in the IG negotiations<O:P style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "></O:P></span></font></span><font
size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span class=apple-style-span><font size=2 color=black
face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:black'>(2) ICANN on various points has stated its position on WSIS IG
negotiations.<O:P style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "></O:P></span></font></span><font
size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span class=apple-style-span><font size=2 color=black
face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:black'> <O:P style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "></O:P></span></font></span><font
size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span class=apple-style-span><font size=2 color=black
face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:black'>Hence one can expect anyone who is closely associated with ICANN
to move only within a given spectrum of positions on IG.<O:P style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "></O:P></span></font></span><font
size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span class=apple-style-span><O:P style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: 13.3333px; "><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Courier New";color:black'> </O:P></span></font></span><font size=1
color=black face=Helvetica><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span class=apple-style-span><font size=2 color=black
face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:black'> 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></font></span><font
size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</span>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>a.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>