<!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="#000099">
<font face="serif">McTim<br>
<br>
You seriously believe ICANN is a civil society organisation!?<br>
<br>
Apart from the many other absurdities implied, you mentioned in your
email to Milton that allocation of domain name, IP addresses etc is a
'natural monopoly' function. Dont you see that civil society is
definitionally a social sub-system denoting pluralism,
non-rivalrous-ness, non-monopoly etc.... How could an organisation do a
'natural monopoly' function and be civil society?<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
</font><br>
McTim wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">BTW, methinks that you might want to (in the interest of full
disclosure) let us know if you are still under contract with the ITU
in re: IP address distribution issues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">McTim
I am touched by your concern for conflict of interest issues :).
In fact very often I do think of the basis of legitimacy of civil society
and I find issues of transparency, responding to critiques and other
questions immediately and always, accountability, proof of action/
performance vis a vis ideals upheld etc as key in this regard. 'Conflict of
interest' issues are very important here, and very high standards of
disclosure must be maintained. As importantly, structural situations of any
such conflicts of interests should be avoided, and in any case openly
discussed, and responded to.
However, I do find it strange and incongruous that whenever we have tried to
discuss on this list conflict of interest issues implicating people in
important management positions of bodies involved in Internet policy-making
seeking to represent civil society, you have repeatedly taken up the defence
such practises, and pooh poohed considerations of conflict of interest. Can
you please explain the double standards being employed by you in this
regard.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
As I have explained many times before, I see the current IG orgs
(ICANN/IETF/ISOC/RIRs/ccTLD bodies, etc as CS orgs. At least
according to LSE and Wikipoedia and most other definitions of CS I can
find online.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It is important to note that the issue you point out in this case is just a
possible one-off contract of research/ study etc (though I agree with your
demand for full disclosure) , while the practices you have defended pertains
to people actually occupying key permanent positions in Internet policy
making bodies, whereby they are organisationally bond to represent the
interests of their employing organisation.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
exactly, they are bound to represent their CS orgs. Just as you
represent yours.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>