[governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Nov 10 09:39:12 EST 2005
Adam
You read my comment wrong
I said that the position I state may be complicated and
"I am sorry, if it is complicated - but I CANNOT (emphasis added now)
simplify it to say that -
yes I want governmental control over Internet."
But you quote me to say - I want governmental control over the internet.
This is quite unfair - I did not use 'headline' language for your positions
and therefore I request not to use 'sensationalizing' language for my
position. Especially since I clearly requested it not to be simplified in
terms that you insist on simplifying it into.
And I keep on insisting that my position is same as that of IGP response to
WGIG report, that of Hans Klein, that of Anriette (expressed on this list),
that of Carlos and many other people as well. And I have stated that my
organization has picked this view from many NGOs from the south including at
a recent massive feminist gathering (AWID)
And my position is exactly the same as APC is developing in a new doc, and I
had the pleasure of sharing and discussing many of these positions with APC
members who drafted these - and I completely supported all of it. And I
differ not on one word with it.
So when you say
>>> To be honest, I cannot remember anyone
from civil society saying they want governmental
control over the Internet.>>>>
of course you are carrying on from a wrong reading of my email. As for the
position I have discussed in many of my emails - which I once again request
NOT to be 'headlined' to 'I want governmental control over Internet' -
which, among other things, call for putting in place a convention/treaty
process - the same position is articulated by many. In fact some of these
positions are stronger than mine.
So I request you not to resort to 'labeling'. I am not stopping you from
going ahead and putting out whatever position you and others want to put out
- and I am not proposing that the earlier position be thrown out on my
'whim' - I already have twice asked you to go ahead if you think sufficient
consensus exists on the text. An absolute consensus in such circumstance
will never obtain, and is very impractical to seek.
Parminder
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:41 PM
To: Parminder
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to
Parminder, thanks. comment below.
At 10:45 PM +0530 11/9/05, Parminder wrote:
>Adam wrote:
>
>>>>Why is it unacceptable? And what exactly do you mean by "political
>oversight"? Do you mean this is a role for governments?
>
>Be specific please.>>>
>
>Sorry, I thought I have made my position clear in many mails - and
therefore
>took it to be known....
>
>By political oversight I mean policy making authority over ICANN - however
>minimum, and certainly, clearly defined by principles and rules, that need
>to be laid out. And yes, only global governance system that can be
>considered legitimate in present circumstances is one which has a
>inter-governmental basis - though new forms can be tried here - and CS
>needs to find spaces in this new system for IG to make it more accountable
>and representative.
>
>I am sorry, if it is complicated - but I cannot simplify it to say that -
>yes I want governmental control over Internet.
This was my concern when I read your earlier
messages. To be honest, I cannot remember anyone
from civil society saying they want governmental
control over the Internet. With respect,
borrowing your favorite response, it is
*completely unacceptable*.
Anyway. I think we have lost the opportunity to
develop our positions on "oversight". Perhaps we
will be able to have a more productive discussion
when we are together in Tunis. I hope so.
I think we need to recognize that what was agreed
long ago remains. It is not carved in stone, but
the basis for our work. It cannot be thrown out
on a whim. And we will all be careful to note
your and other comments when we come to drafting
caucus comments for the prepcom.
Thanks,
Adam
>Parminder
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) [mailto:apeake at gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:16 PM
>To: Parminder
>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to
>
>Parminder
>
>On 11/10/05, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> Adam
>>
>> >>> I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet
>> Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about
>> >>ICANN. Personally, I think it's an excellent paper.
>>
>> >>>This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working
>> >>definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about
>> >>ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy
>> >>supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet
identifiers.">>>
>>
>> In an earlier email I had expressed my appreciation of a lot of the
>analysis
>> in the paper, but disagreement with its outcome.
>>
>> The new paper by Milton and others concludes that a reformed ICANN be
left
>> without political oversight - which is unacceptable -
>
>Why is it unacceptable? And what exactly do you mean by "political
>oversight"? Do you mean this is a role for governments?
>
>Be specific please.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>
>> and also quite at
>> variance with earlier outputs form the IG project. IG project's response
>to
>> WGIG report clearly calls for setting into motion a process for
framework
>> convention - and does not approve of an ICANN doing its own political
>> oversight (if that can be a meaningful concept). Such a move towards
>> establishing the rule of law is also well articulated in the recent
paper
>by
>> Hans Klein, and his subsequent postings.
>>
>> The recent paper by Milton speaks of narrower oversight and broader
> > oversight - and promises to deal with the broader oversight issue
later.
>> There is a big problem here. The narrow and broader oversight areas are
>> horizontal divisions, and not vertical components, and therefore can not
>be
>> considered separately form one another. The interface between the two is
>the
>> whole issue - and if the narrow oversight is not defined in a manner
that
>it
>> has a workable interface with the broader oversight - than there is no
>point
>> in determining the mechanisms of broader oversight later. How will the
> > broader oversight then be enforced on the realm of the narrow
oversight. I
>> have found the attempt to separate the two - in this manner - always
>> problematic. An analytical separation soon becomes a political
separation.
>>
>> Can we instead try to build a consensus around IG project's response to
>WGIG
>> report. (Internet Governance Quo Vadis? A Response to the WGIG
>> Report)(http://www.internetgovernance.org/)
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
>> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:41 PM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to
>>
>> We seem to be struggling with "oversight" at the moment.
>>
>> I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet
>> Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about
>> ICANN. Personally, I think it's an excellent paper.
>>
>> This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working
>> definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about
>> ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy
>> supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers."
>>
>> I would be interested to hear opinions on this.
>>
>> Can you support this paper?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> At 11:47 AM -0500 11/1/05, Milton Mueller wrote:
>> >=================
>> >Political Oversight of ICANN
>> >=================
>> >
>> >The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the
>> >controversies around "oversight" of ICANN.
>> >
>> > http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf
>> >
>> >We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in
>> >setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the narrower
>> >problem of ICANN's oversight.
>> >
>> >An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to
>> >supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight can
>> >be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids
>> >threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet.
>> >
>> >The paper can be downloaded here:
>> >http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf
>> >
>> >www.internetgovernance.org
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>--
>Email from Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling. Please
>reply to <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> Thanks!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051110/0a14df7c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list