<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: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="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* 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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:528489871;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1373522200 -1256266080 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"\(%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Hi <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>I have been trying to take some lessons from the very
interesting .xxx debate on this list for the advocacy work that IGC could/needs
to do…. This is in keeping with the dual nature of IGC’s mandate
– being a discussion (and ideas development) space as well as doing
advocacy work. And in the process I will also add some of my views on the subject.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>So, both Milton and Adam are right, in parts. .xxx
discussion has been very useful and is important, and that we also need to
think about what IGC wants to do about it. And a forum presenting itself for us
to do something is the IGF consultations…. I have combined the
threads on .xxx discussion and on going forward vis a vis IGC at IGF, and
changed the subject line. It also makes for a very long email for which I apologize.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>.xxx issue is seen as the proxy for the broader issue of
global IG public policy. There have been two main positions in this discussion
(though the discussion in fact has been very nuanced and rich, and this two way
typology is merely a convenient way to try to move towards some actionable
items). <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><u><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold'>ICANN shouldn’t do content management
since it is public policy issue. But then who should ??? <o:p></o:p></span></font></u></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>One side can be represented by Robin/ <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Milton</st1:place></st1:City>’s views that .xxx is a public
policy issue and ICANN should not have got into public policy arena, and should
have stuck to its purely technical mandate. If we were to accept this, the
major issue confronting us is – who does the public policy in this arena.
To quote <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Milton</st1:place></st1:City>….<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>>ICANN's control of the
root, we believe, should not be used to exert policy leverage over things not
directly related to >the coordination of unique identifiers. There are
other, more decentralized mechanisms for dealing with the policy >problems.</span></font><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>I would like know which ones are these. Milton, are you
veering around to the point that there is no need for any global IG public
policy processes/ structures… or, assuming you are counting in WIPO, WTO
etc, that there is no need of some specifically IG/ IS ones?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><font size=2
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Milton</span></font></st1:place></st1:City><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> has also
spoken about the Framework Convention as being the way out. However, if
that’s the real way forward as seen by Milton (and IGP) it is intriguing
why we hear so little about it from them. It comes in <st1:City w:st="on">Milton</st1:City>’s
argumentations, for logical consistency, but if the real solution lies in an FC
why doesn’t <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Milton</st1:place></st1:City>’s
considerable writing and advocacy energy get focused on it? The fact that
an FC looks like a long way off (if ever possible) cannot deter us because
civil society (CS) is still the right space/ actor to start developing the
ground. And there are significant advantages in being the first mover. My this
line of discussion with Milton/ IGP goes back to prepcom 2/3 of <st1:State
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Tunis</st1:place></st1:State> phase when I has
just about started to know the IG world. IGP produced a paper on how ICANN
shouldn’t do public policy, and promised to write another paper on who
should do it then. I argued that the two are connected issues, so please hurry
with your views on who should? As far as I know that second paper was never
written. I know this is the difficult part, but it is important and
inescapable. You cant speak about one thing without speaking about the other.
So lets work on that …. It is a better way of taking public policy work
away from ICANN, than saying first ICANN should abstain and then we will think
of where the responsibility falls. I can never understand this logic of working
for a public policy vacuum. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold'>The only reason for doing so can be that
the default political/ policy situation works for some.</span></font></b><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>And this is that the crux of the problem</span></b>. <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>And the real division is between those for whom the
present IG political system is working and those for whom it isn’t</span></b>.
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>The visible division of opinions as described
here on the policy role of ICANN is a red herring</span></b>. <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>Note that for many proponents on either side the present
system is essentially fine, and they aren’t proposing specific
alternatives</span></b>. <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>For those who think
that the present system is BASICALLY wrong aren’t even positioned as one
clear side of the debate. <o:p></o:p></span></b></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Karl has suggested that we can wait for some future period
of maturity and consensus, and till then keep political issues off from our
agenda. Politics doesn’t cease because one orders it to – every
social structure is as completely political as another – the difference
is only in the distribution of power within the structure …<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>So, this stance that ICANN shouldn’t do public policy
is not meaningful without some clarity about, and clear evidence of devotion of
energy for moving towards, what may be legitimate public policy structures. I
think IGC should be strongly pushing for a ‘legitimate public policy
space’ for IG in a single-minded devotion to the cause. It can be done
through persistent efforts at seeking accountability regarding the enhanced
cooperation proposal, and it could be about beginning a CS sponsored set of
activities for developing internationally applicable public policy principles
for IG and proposing structural innovations for it. Here, I am not specifically
pushing the FC agenda though something like that looks to me the way to go. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><u><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold'>Content management is political and ICANN-GAC
system is fine in doing it. But is it representative and legitimate … <o:p></o:p></span></font></u></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>The second stream that came out of the .xxx debate is of
those who accept that ICANN work involves socio-political considerations and
that it is important for ICANN to be sensitive to these. The proponents of this
position accept that ICANN does public policy – independently, or through
its uneasy relationship with GAC. This group seems to be comfortable with ICANN
– GAC doing the required public policy, and, as I understand, look
forward to an evolution of this system as more IG policy issues come up. My
problem with this stance is that I see ICANN as very unrepresentative of the
vast majority of the world, and therefore not a legitimate body for this role.
There is no connect between this big majority and ICANN structures. No
development sector CS constituencies are represented and private sector and big
corporations are over represented, making for an exact inversion of how public
bodies need to be shaped for our objectives of a more just, equal and free
world. And in my view these distortions are structural and cannot be corrected
by incremental changes. And now as the government sector gets better and better
accommodated by ICANN, we may be moving towards an alliance of the rich,
corporates and governments doing mutual accommodations and governing the most
important infrastructure of the emerging information society in their
interests. For me it is a scary scenario. I quote a recent email by Mawaki.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>></span></font><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Meanwhile,
the transition has unfortunately been on and on...<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>>too long, untill now all the
governments are realizing what power they can exert over the central
infrastructure of the >Net ….. In a short while, they will all love
ICANN and oppose any institutional change;…...<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>The CS from the South (and most non-tech background
progressive groups from the North) do NOT see ICANN as a friendly space at all.
They feel relatively more comfortable at the IGF, and will be comfortable with
an international FC kind of process. For this reason, as starting point, we need
to be able to discuss ICANN at IGF. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><u><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold'>Our plans for IGF<o:p></o:p></span></font></u></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>I am not in favor of just repeating our February statement
at the May IGF consultations. That time one person could veto the proposal that
we demand ICANN be discussed at the IGF. I don’t see how we can move
forward with such a situation. If IGC cant ask ICANN to be discussed at IGF,
then we have more faith in ICANN than the IGF. I think this is a kind a basic
position on which I will rather go for a caucus voting and clarify for once and
for all. We cant do any advocacy at all if we remain shackled with these kinds
of things. If we cant discuss ICANN at IGF I myself don’t see much point
in going there. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>I have a feeling that with ICANN and IGF being seen as
‘our’ spaces as against those where governments dominate, we are
becoming too much of insiders in these institutions, and do not much look like
a CS group anymore, which always have a strong and boiling advocacy issue or
two, for which they may be ready to be aggressive and make protests etc….<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'> So, I propose that we identify some clear
advocacy agendas and plan our strategies around them. Otherwise we aren’t
making much impact, and aren’t representing the wider CS issues and
interests that we promised to do in our charter. In brief, I think we
should be pushing for three themes strongly for <st1:place w:st="on">Rio</st1:place>
– <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>(1)<font size=1 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></font></span></span></font><![endif]><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Asking insistently
about what’ s on with global IG public policy processes and structures
– speaking about the enhanced cooperation process, and in case there is
sufficient internal consensus in CS, try to build towards an FC kind of process.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.25in'><font size=2 face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>(2)<font size=1 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></font></span></span></font><![endif]><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Call for a
forum within IGF to discuss ICANN – to have ICANN interface with and be
accountable to the many constituencies (which by far makes the majority of the
world’s population) which cant access its present structures.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>(3)<font size=1 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></font></span></span></font><![endif]><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Develop and
discuss what constitutes a ‘development agenda in IG’. A really
through discussion will help us go beyond the tokenistic listing of ‘access’
as the main agenda of <st1:place w:st="on">Rio</st1:place>. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Parminder <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>