[governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options'

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I want to respond to this and offer, perhaps, a second point of view.

On 6 nov 2005, at 03.13, Parminder wrote:

> It is more surprising because WGIG was a more of a deliberating  
> body and is an expired body, while
>
>
>
> (1) ICANN is a major player in the present IG and of course an  
> interested party in the IG negotiations
>
> (2) ICANN on various points has stated its position on WSIS IG  
> negotiations.
>
>
>
> Hence one can expect anyone who is closely associated with ICANN to  
> move only within a given spectrum of positions on IG.
>
>
>
>  So, it makes me really wonder why association with ICANN did not  
> even figure in this discussion on caucus representative-ness. I  
> think it is because many take an ICANN or ICANN-like position, by  
> default, as a CS position on IG. This is very problematic. I want  
> to insist that this is a narrow view, which comes from keeping the  
> discussions within a charmed circle. It doesn’t help to say … ‘well  
> the processes are open, why do not other people with different  
> viewpoints participate’...

I think once has to take a look at why people are involved with  
ICANN.  Most of them have becomes involved since the start of the  
WSIS project.  Speaking for myself, I am interested in bringing CS IG  
input into ICANN as opposed to the other way around.  Before WSIS/ 
WGIG, while I knew ICANN was there, I never had an interest in  
getting involved.  On seeing how much there was to be done, and on  
coming to a personal conclusion that one needs to work both from the  
inside and the outside, I decided to get involved.

True I have to acknowledge that being invovled with ICANN does color  
my viewpoint as I have to understand the viewpoint of others involved  
in ICANN, but I do not believe it pollutes it or that it removes  
those who do engage with ICANN from CS.    And I think you may some  
some in ICANN who agree with the structure of your argument as they  
believe that no one involved in WSIS CS can be trusted in ICANN as we  
are suspected of having anti ICANN views that are dangerous to ICANN.

At lot of discussion has gone done, in CS, in WSIS /WGIG about  
replacing ICANN.  The consensus, the global consensus, seems to be  
that this will not happen, at least not in the near term.  that leave  
us with the option of working to change ICANN or disengaging.  I  
consider both options valid, if one is opposed to ICANN in its  
totality, they should oppose it.  but if one believes that changes  
can be made and that those changes could improve things for  
transparency, openness, multistakeholderism and for internet users  
globally, then it makes sense to be engaged in both CS IG and ICANN.

Of course, if there is rough consensus in the IGC that membership in  
some other organization disqualifies one from participation, then  
that will be another story.  I do hope we don't down that  
exclusionary route, however, as once we start excluding one type of  
person we might get carried away with the number of people we want to  
exclude.

a.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051106/7b305f31/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance