[governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

[Carlos Afonso]

Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote:

>Is there any chance, remote I suspect, that we agree to the following?
>
>Regarding the WGIG report:
>
>42. The caucus finds model one to be unworkable and not in keeping
>with the inclusive processes recommended throughout the WGIG report.
>We also find certain aspects of Model 4 to be not in keeping with the
>WGIG recommendations. Model two is clearly the most workable as a
>starting point, and is favored by most civil society participants.
>However, aspects of model 3, particularly the importance of a host
>nation agreement and provisions for tackling developmental issues,
>merit greater attention.
>  
>
Again the issue of representation... "Most civil society participants"? 
Let us make sure we keep the record clear here: a small group of CS reps 
is participating in this debate, which further increases our 
responsibility here.

A "starting point" needs at least a suggestion of what will follow. You 
are on the verge of an abyss and do a step forward as a starting point? 
Let us recall the WGIG models are structural proposals, not transition 
proposals. If we adhere formally to model 2, we are adhering to that 
structure, not to a "starting point". Model 2 completely ignores all the 
discussion (which we at least agreed is essential) on the 
internationalization of ICANN.

>[43. deleted referes to action suggested for prepcom 3 Geneva]
>
>44. An acceptable oversight framework would
>- Allow multi-stakeholder input into policy development
>- Ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders from developing countries
>- Focus on shared responsibility rather than oversight and control
>
>45. We believe that this broad issue and in particular the issue of
>governance structures as regards the root zone authorisation function
>should be addressed with some urgency.
>
>46. The acceptance of a single root for the DNS is an important
>enabler of the Internet's international reach Governance arrangements
>for the root zone file should be outside the control of any individual
>government, and broadly acceptable to all stakeholders. If this issue
>is not addressed, it will lead to an increase in the number of
>alternative root structures that could impact negatively on the
>Internet's security, stability and interoperability.  Under the
>current naming scheme, this could lead to the fragmentation of the
>Internet and the user community.
>
>END
>
>  
>
It would be better "...if not addressed, it **might lead** to an 
increase in the number of alternative root structures...". People might 
have a radical discourse, but they are not crazy... But the point is 
that CS cannot be against **any** proposal for alternative systems. 
First, is a question of paradigm -- we must be prepared for technical 
innovation which might make this centralized root discussion irrelevant 
in the near future -- remember Galileo! :). We are supposed to be 
progressive, right? Secondly, at least one alternative root proposal is 
being built on premises which differ significantly from the 
opportunistic attempts to make money on parallel contraptions, and I 
would not throw it out without careful discussion first.

--c.a.


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