<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 23 November 2013 05:33 PM,
William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Hi
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Parminder, FWIW the term orphaned issues has been around
since before we met in Tunis, e.g<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hi Bill, thanks for this information. I correct myself. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> I used it in a presentation to the UNICT TF forum at UN NYC
in March 2004 in arguing for creation of a new mechanism and in
many places since, including the consultations on creating IGF
in 2004, the WGIG book in 2005, in four workshops etc. pushing
for IG4D to be on the IGF agenda subsequently (see the Sharm
book)... In fact, it’s also in the IGC's July 2005 response to
the WGIG report—i.e. the IGF mandate should include
"identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance
architecture, i.e. ‘orphaned' or multidimensional issues that do
not fall neatly within the ambit of any existing body.”</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
To the extent that we can all agree that there are indeed many
issues that are not being dealt by current mechanisms, that is a
good start for doing the real work of thinking about the needed
mechanisms. (and of course, post WSIS the list of much issues has
only grown tremendously.) <br>
<br>
Marilia on the behalf of CTS, Brazil, and our organisation held a
workshop in Nairobi on this issue. Markus speaking for ISOC was
specifically asked about these non ICANN and non tech issues and he
said that (more or less) all of these are being dealt by one global
agency or the other.... In that sense I think that the tech
community was in denial with regard to these issues, which they have
shed now. <br>
<br>
However, I still hear a lot of people in civil society being
doubtful (or simply denying) that there are such public policy
issues that need a new mechanism... Even after 10 years of WSIS,
they say lets first map and find out if there are indeed such issues
(when even WGIG listed enough of them).... and therefore this denial
in terms of Internet-related public policy issues (that are either
not at all, or not adequately, dealt by existing mechanisms)
continues to be widespread. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It’s fine if you don’t want to use the term now, but it most
certainly was not intended to give issues that are subject to no
global governance mechanisms a subsidiary or weaker
status—precisely the opposite. And in any event, this is one
thing you can’t blame on the technical community :-)</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
About the forthcoming Brazil meeting, I remain most concerned by the
repeated statements emanating from ICANN/ I* quarters to the effect
that they face “growing pressures to address issues outside its
sphere of responsibility" . This appears very strange to me.... Who
is applying such pressure? Can they recognise those parties for us.
Because I know none. This to me looks like a self-asserted demand
coming for the global IG system status quoists. <br>
<br>
And of course the idea is to somehow extend the ICANN model of
governance to these "issues outside its sphere of responsibility" ,
which are the numerous Internet-related public policy issues. It is
in this sense, that I said that in tech community's mind these
issues seem to be of a lower/ subsidiary status, whereby probably
ICANN model can be extended to them. But I understand what you mean
above -- they have indeed always been very concerned that the manner
of dealing with these 'Internet-related public policy' issues would
somehow interfere with the freedom of their own work. This is a
legitimate fear. <br>
<br>
best, parminder<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>On Nov 22, 2013, at 11:39 PM, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <font
face="Verdana">I will like to participate in all.... <br>
<br>
Meanwhile, I had requested on the 'summit' sublist of
BB that the term 'orphan issues' is loaded and that
the more appropriate term from Tunis agenda
'Internet-related public policy issues' be used under
3.2 below. I think Jeremy did change it then as per my
suggestion.<br>
<br>
The term 'orphan issues' was essentially introduced
recently by the I* star group. To me it gives 'public
policy issues' a status of kind of subsidiarity or
dependency (in any case, certainly a lower status) to
'IG issues of technical nature' that I* deals with -
whereby it becomes more 'logical' to extend the ICANN
model of governance to substantive public policy
issues.... <br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 23 November
2013 02:03 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACpVkK1zAF_hHq5ZMQs5C2EL4D6WJuqW82OS6ZhnpWVNNbmEyg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;background:white">OUTPUTS</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"></span></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Recommendation
on process issues for the conference (remote
participation, stakeholder representation and
selection)</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Substantive
input on universal Internet principles (based on
Marco Civil and/or other existing principles
documents).</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Substantive
input on an institutional framework for
multistakeholder Internet governance including:</span></li>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Internationalisation
of ICANN (based on existing work done by
Internet Governance Project and/or others).</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Orphan issues (based
on existing proposals put before the WGEC and
the recommendations of the Correspondence
Group).</span></li>
</ol>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>