[governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

Carlos Afonso ca at rits.org.br
Wed Nov 9 15:39:41 EST 2005


I agree with Avri's clarification -- the use of "North" and "South" 
should at best be within quotation marks. I used it loosely to signify 
Europe, USA, Japan... ;) but actually to reinforce the point of being 
very careful with what we actually represent. We are a very small number 
of people, and an even smaller number in the list is actually participating.

--c.a.

Avri Doria wrote:

>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
>
>
>  
>

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



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



More information about the Governance mailing list