<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
Dear Jeremy and All<br>
<br>
To make progress on a EC statement, it is my impression that we
separate important areas and implications of EC and discuss and comment
on them separately.<br>
<br>
About one separation I have already commented. The EC process proper
and the broader processes of preparing conditions for it. These two
consist of different processes and different roles for different
actors. Our comments can deal with this issue accordingly in two parts.<br>
<br>
The second seperation, I see becoming key to taking an EC discussion
forward is between IG arena relating to CIR management and that
relating to other more substantive and socio-political areas like IP,
cyber security, content realted issues, socio-political issues about
Internet architecture, social networking, other key global digital
applications etc. Let me just for sake of distinction call these as
'substantive areas' ( Am happy to use another name if anyone has a
problem with this one)<br>
<br>
I see that I keep advancing opinions and options about global Internet
public policies vis a vis 'substantive area' , evne making it clear
that i am not referring to CIR management area, and I keep getting
'nay' responses about CIR management area, with alternative options
being suggested that clearly seem to only refer to CIR area (this is
why I asked how substantive policies can be ever developed through
these models and i dont think I got the response.)<br>
<br>
Since, as per Tunis Agenda, we have reaffirmed that EC goes beyond CIR
area, it will be a great service to overall discussion around EC if we
give our EC related comments separately about the two IG areas - CIRs
or technical management, and substantive issues related. I dont see
why anyone should have any objection against these simple process
simplifying suggestion. <br>
<br>
Regarding CIR or technical management area:<br>
<br>
In fact, TA seems to suggest that it does not want to substantively
disturb the actual technical management processes. and I agree. I am
ready to evne endorse a sentence or two affirming our position in this
regard - that the existing decentralized and multistakeholder processes
of CIR management should be continued etc. In my view this should
satisfy all those who have repeatedly rooted for this model in the
discussions of the last few days.<br>
<br>
The only controversial issue here is of US versus a more global body as
supervisory node over the ICANN plus system. I think it has been the
civil society position for a long time that US's supervisory role in
this regard is not acceptable to the international community. I think
we have also expressed the position that ICANN oversight be
internationalised. I am fine that we say that all the present authority
of the US gov (and no more) be immidiately shifted to a global body
with multistakeholder representation. I dont see how we as a global CS
body have an objection to this. But happy to hear comments.<br>
<br>
Regarding substantive issues<br>
<br>
We should condemn making of Internet global public policy among
conclave of a few powerful nations, when it is evident that the
outcomes of these policies will have global ramifications. Also the
fact that most global digital corporations that today provide services
that are increasingly essential to our social lives are subject to
regulatory powers of a few powerful countries. To address both these
anomalies, and in the context of the vacuum in global policy making (in
these substantive, non CIR areas), and the fact that as Internet
becomes more and more central to our social systems the need for global
public policies will keep increasing, a global IG council or
organization with representation from across the globe and from all
stakeholders ..... Hereafter we can add the nature, role and
composition regarding details for this Body as per my earlier proposal,
and comments of others....<br>
<br>
While it makes sense that this Body also does CIR related functions/
role that is at present done by the US gov (and no more in relation to
CIR management), since otherwise the separate CIR supervisory body will
have little to do day-today, just to keep the two debates separate
(since now I am convinced that mixing them is the main reaosn we are
not able to make progress) I am fine if the global CIR supervisory body
is a seperate one from the above referred IG Council or organization. <br>
<br>
I request, if possible, for members to give their comments separately
for CIR area and other substantive areas to this proposal for IGC
comments for EC consultations.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>