[governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

[Avri Doria]

I am not sure more 'northern'* answers are valued by the caucus, but  
not responding seems the worse option.

* note:  the  people excluded from the internet are not solely from  
the south.  e.g. i work with a population of arctic northerners who  
are a less developed population and who have limited networking  
opportunities.   They view the south as the richer developed part of  
the world.

when it comes to the people on this list, i believe, we are all among  
the privileged. and yes, as with all creature, some are more  
privileged then others - not sure how that divides across the equator  
line.

On 9 nov 2005, at 03.16, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>
>
>
> * OVERSIGHT
>
> -- GENERAL OVERSIGHT
>
> 1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in
> multistakeholder settings.
>

agree

> 2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a
> governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles".
>

agree

>
> -- DNS OVERSIGHT
>
> 3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be
> governmental oversight over ICANN.

agree

>
> 4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the
> present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo.
>

agree, assuming multilateral means just nation states

> 5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be
> "anchored" to the United Nations.
>

agree

> 6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over  
> the
> DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where
> governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable.
>

not sure.  i think there may be people who want full inter- 
governmental control of all internet resources.

> 7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in
> the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable.

agree

>
> 8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved
> below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations".
>

not sure

> 9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil
> society (including individual users, the academic community, the free
> software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy
> making structures.
>

not sure.  there seem to people on this list who distrust CS as much  
as i distrust government.  there certainly are strong opinions that  
there is no representativeness in CS and hence no legitimacy for  
representation.

> 10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN,
> provided that we don't get too much into detail.
>

not sure.  there is a strong opinion that we must get into the  
details before we can accept multistakeholderism

> 11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the
> government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided  
> that we
> don't discuss the form.
>

not sure

> 12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable,
> transparent and democratic.
>

agree

>
> * FORUM
>
> 13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing.
>

not sure

> 14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be
> "anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan,
> as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it
> happen.
>

not sure

> 15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it  
> on an
> equal basis.
>

i don't think so.  see comment about the legitimacy of CS.

> 16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent,
> accountable and democratic.

agree.  for some definition of accountability or democracy

>
> 17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue".
>

not sure

> 18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact
> that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there  
> is no
> duplication of work.
>

not sure.  think there may be some participants who believe that  
issue discussed elsewhere are off limits

> 19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion  
> and
> for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals.
>

agree

> 20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding
> documents.

not sure.  some posit the possibility that it could decide to  
negotiate something hard.

>
> 21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an
> "executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it
> should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis.

agree on sentence one.  re sentence 2, note the issue on CS legitimacy

>
> 22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be  
> taken as
> a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms  
> should
> be used extensively to allow remote participation.

maybe

>
> 23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan
> to drive its creation.
>


not sure.  some participants want there to be no UN participation at  
all.

> 24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of
> stakeholder representatives should be created as well.

agree

>
> 25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before  
> the end
> of 2006.

have we discussed this?


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