[IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit

[parminder]

On Saturday 23 November 2013 05:33 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Parminder, FWIW the term orphaned issues has been around since before 
> we met in Tunis, e.g

Hi Bill, thanks for this information. I correct myself.

> 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.”

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.)

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.

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.

>
> 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 :-)

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.

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.

best, parminder

>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
> On Nov 22, 2013, at 11:39 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> I will like to participate in all....
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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....
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Saturday 23 November 2013 02:03 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>>
>>> OUTPUTS
>>>
>>>  1. Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote
>>>     participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
>>>  2. Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on
>>>     Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
>>>  3. Substantive input on an institutional framework for
>>>     multistakeholder Internet governance including:
>>>      1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done
>>>         by Internet Governance Project and/or others).
>>>      2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the
>>>         WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131123/3f3f5420/attachment.htm>