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

[Parminder]

Hi Jeanette, 

You have been avoidably sensitive in blaming me for aggression,
dis-crediting members and damaging the space of IG list/caucus. Such blame
has the effect of stifling debate.

I did not discredit anyone nor use aggression. I used every word I wrote
with discretion and a good amount of thought. And I have tried to study
issues in the last few weeks about IG, and the manner of its advocacy in CS,
and thereupon interposed my opinions here because I felt that some important
advocacy issues that I and my organization believe in needed to be
addressed. I can assure you that I did not take all this effort for the
purpose of discrediting anyone. 

I don't understand why would you accuse me of such a thing. And why would
you not see that I only highlighting issues in their connection to a point
of view which I was presenting, (and one can judge, I strongly believe in).
Even if you do not agree with it, I request your patience with it. 

And you have bypassed all substantive issues in my email. For example, about
the strong views that are held on privatized governance in civil society
across the world that haven't found much expression here. And, to give
another example, if everyone really does agree that the whole world is the
'internet community' today, what exactly are these reforms that I keep
hearing about that ICANN is soon going to do which will make it legitimate
representative of the whole population of the world. It indeed will be very
interesting to learn about them because if ICANN indeed is going to be able
to do this, I am ready to trust it with many other pressing non-IG global
governance issues as well...........

Regards

Parminder 




-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] 
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 6:25 PM
To: Parminder
Cc: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus'
Subject: Re: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight
options'


Hi, Parminder,

  I personally am not for very stringent
> conditions for this purpose - and I expect that any chosen person will 
> recognize that she or he can only represent the group's view and not 
> their individual view.

Ok, I think this is what most people on this list think.
> 


> Hence one can expect anyone who is closely associated with ICANN to move 
> only within a given spectrum of positions on IG.

I don't know what you mean by given spectrum of positions. If you mean 
to say that all people who participate in ICANN support its current 
structure, you are clearly wrong.
> 
>  
> 
>  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.

If you had followed the discussion on this list over the last year you 
would knew that this is not true. Please consult the archive.

  >
> If we mean to view IG caucus as even somewhat representative of IG view 
> of CS at WSIS; and CS at WSIS as at least trying to be representative of 
> the wider global civil society,

 From my point of view, we (CS at WSIS) don't represent anybody beyond 
CS at WSIS.


> And IG is not an isolated issue; it is connected to, and has 
> implications for many other issues, 

I agree, and I think this is one of the strong points made by the WGIG 
report.


> 
>  ICANN is fond of speaking about the 'internet community' - and I had 
> argued in my last email that, today there is no specific Internet 
> community - everyone is (or needs to be) impacted by the internet - 
> hence the world community is the Internet community.

I'd say that most people on this list share this view.



>  And with people associated with ICANN dominating the IG caucus, it can 
> be expected that the views that will emerge from the IG caucus will be 
> on a narrow band 

Again, I don't think its fair to assume that . Despite the fact that 
many or most of us are in some ways related to ICANN, we disagree on 
many issues. We all hold our own views, and official positions held by 
ICANN don't have much influence on those views.



> I will put forward comments on the specific language in the draft in 
> another email. 






> So the position as circulated in the draft, will only lend support to 
> the US position. 

Again, I don't think this is an adequate description of caucus 
positions. The disagreement among caucus members on political oversight 
is about the future roles of governments in Internet Governance. The USG 
seems to think that it solved this issue back in the 90s. I wouldn't 
know of anybody on this list who shares this position.



I notice that the tone on this list becomes somewhat agressive recently.
I don't find this very helpful. We all depend on a space where we can 
meet and offer our various views for discussion. We damage this space 
when we descredit its members or its losely defined rules.

We all know that we have to discuss the future constitution and purpose 
of this caucus after the summit. To initiate such a debate right now 
seems a bit pointless. Amen.
jeanette




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