<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:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1250">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 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","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
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","serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>HI Parminder<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I agree that ICANN hasn’t had space in the past for CS
groups from other parts of the world, but the model for participation is now
being implemented, and it would be cool if people checked out the RALOs that
are now forming. Quite a few groups from the Caribbean have joined in within the
last few months, and we are now seeing how it works out. Let’s see
if they work as a space for CS within ICANN. If not – there’s a
review upcoming and space for change. I think that it’s important to
participate in all the spaces, not leave out one or the other because it isn’t
a friendly space – it’s to join and force the space to
be more friendly and make the other groups listen to our concerns.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Jacqueline<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Parminder
[mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 09, 2007 3:48 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [governance] .xxx. igc and igf<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Hi
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>.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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>ICANN
shouldn’t do content management since it is public policy issue. But then
who should ??? <o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>One
side can be represented by Robin/ Milton’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 Milton….<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><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><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Milton
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 Milton’s
argumentations, for logical consistency, but if the real solution lies in an FC
why doesn’t Milton’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 Tunis 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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The
only reason for doing so can be that the default political/ policy situation
works for some.</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>
<b>And this is that the crux of the problem</b>. <b>And the real division is
between those for whom the present IG political system is working and those for
whom it isn’t</b>. <b>The visible division of opinions as described here
on the policy role of ICANN is a red herring</b>. <b>Note that for many
proponents on either side the present system is essentially fine, and they
aren’t proposing specific alternatives</b>. <b>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></b></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Content
management is political and ICANN-GAC system is fine in doing it. But is it
representative and legitimate … <o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New"'>></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"'>Meanwhile, the transition has unfortunately been on and
on...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>>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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Our
plans for IGF<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> 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 Rio – <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>(1)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.25in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>(2)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>(3)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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 Rio. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Parminder
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>--<br>
No virus found in this incoming message.<br>
Checked by AVG Free Edition.<br>
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--<BR>
No virus found in this outgoing message.<BR>
Checked by AVG Free Edition.<BR>
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM<BR>
</FONT> </P>