<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3492" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=092245415-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Parminder:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=092245415-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Thanks very much for this long-overdue but welcome and
well-considered explanation. We have indeed felt exasperated at times by the
lack of engagement by IGC/IGF civil society. It has always seemed to me that
ICANN repeatedly raises political issues and struggles that, in the IGF
context, attract a great deal of activity but have very little impact relative
to the ICANN venue. And while it wasn't hard to surmise that some of the
logic you developed below underlay the hesitation to get involved, it is better
to have an open dialogue about this.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=092245415-02042009> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=092245415-02042009></SPAN><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>A<SPAN class=092245415-02042009> few specific
responses and questions below: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Either ICANN, and its GNSO, is
merely doing 'relatively' mundane, though often important, administrative
tasks in managing some critical Internet resources, meaning tasks that do not
have much political implication, or ICANN indeed does tasks with significant
political implications. <SPAN class=092245415-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=092245415-02042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=092245415-02042009>It
is the latter, obviously. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=092245415-02042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">However, in case ICANN/ GNSO
does work with important political implications we simply do not agree with
much of its constitutive logic - for instance, of equality/</FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">balance</FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> between demand and supply side of the
'domain name' marketplace, or even between other commercial and non-commercial
parties. We also do not agree to its basic criterion for legitimate interest/
representation that requires one to at least be a domain registrant. We do not
think that is the point - for instance even in the KTCN campaign of NCUC on
the FoE issue.<SPAN class=092245415-02042009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=092245415-02042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><SPAN
class=092245415-02042009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>For those who
are weak on the acronyms, KTCN = keep the core neutral, FoE =
freedom of expression. I do not see how the KTCN campaign had anything to do
with whether one was a domain registrant or not, but perhaps I miss your
point.</FONT> </SPAN> <BR><BR>Such 'user' based and stakeholder based
global governance systems disproportionately favoring organized private sector
(US-ians may read, business sector) - to counter whose power is a central
governance issue at the global level - are exactly the wrong models of global
governance to promote. Such models are poised to </FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">overall </FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">do much greater damage than good to the
global public interest. They are especially dangerous when they seek political
sovereignty, which we are afraid much of these minor structural adjustments
are aimed at consolidating. </FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">To the extent that </FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">there is a certain complicity in the
ICANN arena i</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">n this
regard</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> - including of some
of the involved civil society actors - we</FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> must strongly disassociate ourselves
from supporting any such implications of the present, or any other, proposal
for structural changes in the ICANN.<SPAN class=092245415-02042009><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=092245415-02042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><SPAN
class=092245415-02042009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Political
sovereignty for the Internet community is precisely what we seek. It
should, of course, be one in which the new global institution(s) are
accountable to a broad segment of Internet society. But this is the
fundamental underlying drama of ICANN and its status vis a vis U.S. government
and other states.</FONT></SPAN><BR><BR>On the other hand, we can understand
and accept user/ stakeholder models for relatively low-level technical policy
tasks, which are politically accountable to globally legitimate entities
(sorry, but US government is not). <SPAN class=092245415-02042009><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=092245415-02042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=092245415-02042009>Who
is? </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=092245415-02042009>Seems we have a choice of three models. 1) Work in
the general framework of private sector, civil society based governance; 2)
take an ITU/WIPO, pure-intergovernmental approach; 3) take what might be
called a competing hegemon approach, in which US contends with EU, China,
Russia, Brazil and India for dominance, and use IGOs (and ICANN) as tools
when convenient and act unilaterally when not. The latter two options are
state-directed but the third relies more on great power deals than established
institutional frameworks. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=092245415-02042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=092245415-02042009>I'll
take 1).</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=092245415-02042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">All such
governance innovations - out-of-the-box, subversive, whatever - that look like
they are especially pushing forward marginalized interests attract our strong
interest. All 'innovations' that further entrench dominant interests -whether
economic, political, geo-political, class - are correspondingly received
with strong political opposition. <SPAN class=092245415-02042009><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=092245415-02042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><SPAN
class=092245415-02042009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Understand this
well. If you want to know why IGP verges on the status
of "radioactive" within ICANN/US/DoC circles it's because of this. But I
suspect our concept of what kind of policies best overcome marginalization may
differ. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><SPAN
class=092245415-02042009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><SPAN
class=092245415-02042009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Setting that
aside, I see based on your final comments below that you at least partly
realize why the NCSG charter should be supported in this case. To spell it out
more clearly, the reason NCSG is being targeted by ICANN staff as something to
be fragmented and manipulated is precisely because NCUC has been
completely independent of staff control and dominance (unlike ALAC and the
RALOs) and because the policies it has advocated have seemed "oppositional"
and challenging to some of those "dominant
interests."</FONT></SPAN><BR><BR></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">We will like to see the NCSG 6.0 charter
developed by the NCUC adopted by the ICANN instead of the alternative one, and
especially agree that its direct instead of constituency based election of
council members is a much better process. It is better because it has a
higher chance of representing global public interest, each candidate having to
muster a much wider support. <SPAN class=092245415-02042009><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=092245415-02042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><SPAN
class=092245415-02042009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Thanks! When it
comes to the bottom line, I am happy to see that you "get
it."</FONT></SPAN><BR><BR></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>