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

[Jacqueline Morris]

Hi
Basically, my position is very similar to Avri's. I knew ICANN
existed, but I had no real interest in being involved, until WSIS.  I
also don't think that ICANN is going anywhere anytime soon, so, given
my exposure to the issues in the past 2 years, I felt it was necessary
to get involved and engage with the organisation in a more impactful
manner. Thus, I also have gotten involved in ICANN processes,
hopefully with the effect that the views of the constituencies to
which I belong can be brought to the table and included.
I find it odd and a bit negative that while demanding inclusion on the
one hand, there is a request to consider exclusion on the other...
And the affiliations of members on the list have been discussed ad
infinitum in the past.
Jacqueline

On 11/6/05, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>


--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance