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

[Parminder]

>>>> 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.>>>

 

I am speaking of the issue of oversight of ICANN and not of replacing ICANN.
Lets not confuse these two issues. Even if ICANN oversight moves to an
inter-governmental system with adequate CS participation, ICANN will still
need a lot of reforming. So it is great to press for and associate with such
reform. 

 

So the question is not of my opposing ICANN, I instead oppose ICANN
arrogating oversight functions - that are of political nature - to itself.
And there is a big difference between ICANN doing resource allocation etc
functions under necessary oversight - and ICANN doing public policy function
which 'no oversight' over ICANN will imply. 

 

Parminder 

 

  _____  

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 9:31 PM
To: Parminder
Cc: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus'
Subject: Re: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight
options'

 

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/20051107/2d58c051/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance