<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hi Bill</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:85BDC764-C10B-4F63-81E0-D5355F8788FC@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<br>
William Drake wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Parminder <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Hi Bill <br>
<br>
All the three models mentioned above that were put forward by WGIG
report centrally include non -ICANN and non -CIR policy issues. They
all refer to wider Internet related public policies. So why do you
conclude from my example of possible consideration of such models among
others that I am proposing a workshop about ICANN 'oversight' alone.
Though, yes, this is one important issue, as is in all the three models
mentioned here. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, in principle they weren't necessarily restricted in scope, which
reflected in no small measure the efforts of the IGC and others to push
the notion of IG beyond ICANN and CIR. </blockquote>
If IGC was indeed pushing for non CIR issues to be in global political
IG models, than there is no reasons for anyone to think that I would be
thinking otherwise in suggesting that inter alia these models may also
be revisited. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:85BDC764-C10B-4F63-81E0-D5355F8788FC@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">But in practice, the governmentals who proposed these
models really were fundamentally thinking about ICANN. </blockquote>
Doesnt matter. I am not in those governments who were doing this. We
cannot allow those governments to determine the whole agenda and merely
be reactive to them.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:85BDC764-C10B-4F63-81E0-D5355F8788FC@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">Model 1's "Global Internet Council" was "to replace the
ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee;" model 3's "International
Internet Council" was to "fulfill the corresponding functions,
especially in relation to ICANN/IANA competencies," to address
"international public policy issues that do not fall within the scope
of other existing intergovernmental organizations" (meaning CIR), and
"could make the Governmental Advisory Committee redundant;" and model
4's World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers was to
exercise an "oversight function over the body responsible, at the
global level, for the technical and operational functioning of Internet
(ICANN)" and replace GAC. It was pretty clear to everyone what we were
talking about. <br>
</blockquote>
But you said above that IGC, and presumable others, were also talking
about non CIR issues. We all know what were the hot and the contested
issue, but that
does not take away other important governance requirements.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:85BDC764-C10B-4F63-81E0-D5355F8788FC@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite"> So when you suggest we need to look at these, and have a
workshop proposal that says "present governance structures grew out of
certain historical contexts" and need "democratic
internationalization," it seemed reasonable to conclude you were
talking about ICANN. If you meant more than that I stand corrected,
but I the ws description and discussion here seemed to suggest
otherwise. <br>
</blockquote>
The workshop proposal clearly say that Internet is no longer just a
technical artifact but much more, which suggests that we are also
speaking about things beyond technical governance, and therefore
beyond CIR. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:85BDC764-C10B-4F63-81E0-D5355F8788FC@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite"><br>
So which other governance structures was the language alluding to? </blockquote>
The real problem here I think is that we seem to see 'political
oversight' of ICANN-plus in a vacuum. In fact such oversight in not
only connected with but actually arises out of other political IG
issues - IPR/ public domain, cultural diversity, FoE, security,
development needs etc . So 'oversight' and other global Internet policy
issues, to a good extent, need to be seen in one bunch. The only
*legitimate* reason that someone with
'political oversight' over CIR management has for exercising such
oversight arises from one or the other such political considerations.
In
that sense any institutional structure for 'oversight' of ICANN-plus
will necessarily be discussing such other public policy issues that IGC
pushed for in WGIG and which are even more important to decide/ resolve
in a globally democratic manner today.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:85BDC764-C10B-4F63-81E0-D5355F8788FC@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">It'd be helpful to know, since the IGC will need to agree
what the session's about if it's approved. <br>
</blockquote>
Since IGC pushed for these other (non CIR) public policy issues to be
included in definition of IG space, I think there must be a fair idea
about such issues. We also had a workshop last year on transnational
Internet. I do not think the idea of need for global governance in IG
arena regarding non CIR issues is that elusive. But yes a discussion on
this
in the IGC is certainly going to be very useful. <br>
<br>
Undemocratically negotiated cyber-security treaty, and now the
anti-counterfeiting trade treaty, are all pointers to what we are
talking about here. The manner in which such things are being done now
are
certainly much worse than a situation where WGIG 1, 3 or 4 models are
in some way involved. I
don't think that CS's best strategy is to keep saying ITU is bad, ICANN
is not ok in exercising political sovereignty, ACTA is not a right way
to do things, without any suggestions or even discussions of possible
alternatives. I presume you have problems with all these
institutional forms of dealing with global Internet related policies.
If so, what in your opinion is the best way to go ahead? Will be glad
to hear them. Non-governance is
not an option. These are the issues that the workshop will deal with
apart from problems with US's unilateral oversight of the ICANN. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:85BDC764-C10B-4F63-81E0-D5355F8788FC@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<br>
>And re: the above, I don't think CS calls for change/evolution
necessarily are grounded in the assertion that the (unnamed) present
arrangements are not >democratic enough. There are a lot of other
bases upon which to critique and call for reforms. <br>
<br>
Which ones are these 'other bases'? The only real problem for me with a
political governance structure can be that either it is not democratic
or not effective. Without a clear democratic underpinning, concepts
like transparency, accountability are meaningless, mostly even
deluding. And when democratic underpinning of a system itself is in
question that 'basis' of reform comes first, before all these other
dependent 'bases'. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
One can argue for global public interest objectives and criteria
without framing them in terms of "democratization," and indeed the
caucus has long done so. We've argued for balancing inter-national
interests, business/public interests, transparency, accountability,
inclusive MS participation, and so on without such grounding. None of
which is incompatible with your conception of the term, it's just that
there's no necessarily intrinsic equation of the terms. <br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="2"><font size="2"><span
style="font-weight: 400;"></span></font></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:85BDC764-C10B-4F63-81E0-D5355F8788FC@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite"><br>
Ok, need to listen to the Russian minister... <br>
<br>
Best, <br>
<br>
Bill <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>