[governance] more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

[Bertrand de La Chapelle]

Dear Parminder,
 On 11/9/05, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> Any agency finally has to be
> located in one country or the other - and therefore has to have a host
> country arrangement.
>
 I would just like to mention that the World Wide Web Consortium that
handles standard setting for the Web around Tim Berners-Lee has no single
location and no structure but uses multiple HOST ENTITIES agreements (not
host countries).
 The initial setting up of W3C was done through three separate agreements :
with MIT, with INRIA in France and Keio University in Japan. It is now
hosted by MIT (US), ERCIM (France) and Keio (Japan, with 15 offices around
the world. More information at : http://www.w3.org/Consortium/
 I know some actors resent the relatively closed nature of the W3C (a
Consortium) that constrast with the open nature of IETF. But for the
discussion at stake, the example shows that innovations can also exist in
structures. The only solution to any international problem is not the UN
model of one Agency in one country with diplomats attending meetings. More
lightweight and distributed frameworks can be imagined and work effectively.
As a matter of fact, had ICANN be set up in a more distributed manner in the
first place - or at least have evolved in the first years or its existence -
many of the symbolically-loaded problems we are facing today would probably
have been reduced.
 But the whole discussion within WSIS never mentions the W3C. Probably
because they did not participate. As a matter of fact, during a discussion a
few months ago, Jean-François Abramatic, who was the first Chairman of W3C,
told me that the W3C could not be accredited as a CS entity to WSIS
precisely because it was not a formal structure. They found it so ironic
that they decided not to participate, even under the umbrella of another
accredited entity.
 My two cents
 Bertrand


>
> Parminder
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
> (ajp at glocom.ac.jp)
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:19 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to
>
> And this is OK, or not acceptable:
>
> "Appropriate commitments by a host government should provide
> privileges and immunities to ICANN to ensure that it is able to
> provide global service in accordance with its bylaws and mission. Such
> binding commitments should ensure that:
>
> * decisions taken by ICANN cannot be overturned by any single government;
> * all countries and stakeholders have the opportunity to access the
> resources managed by ICANN and its related entities;
> * ICANN is able to enter into commercial and other agreements in
> keeping with requirements of its bylaws and mission, enabling it to
> provide and receive DNS services globally, and
> * all stakeholders have the opportunity to participate in ICANN's
> Internet governance processes, without being affected by the policies
> of any single government."
>
> (I would like to change "host government", best to remove all
> suggestion of a host country agreement which I believe would be a
> problematic term for many governments.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051109/58c06ac6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance