[governance] Caucus Position on Oversight?

[Ian Peter]

McTim, let's separate the issues here.

There is a digital divide issue being addressed at WSIS. 

There is also an Internet governance issue being addressed.

WE have no disagreement about the importance of the first issue. Addressing
this appropriately is important. However, this does not distract from the
importance of the second issue. They are separate and will both be
addressed.

On the second issue (correct me if I am wrong) ISOC has no position on the
unilateral USG control of root zone authorization, opposes a forum function,
and rejects all four governance models. 

I suggested

> There is at least a strong chance that no firm structural recommendation
> will come from Prepcomm, but there seems at the same time (taking the
Chairs
> non-paper) an acknowledgement that some change is needed. I realize that
> there are a bunch of ambassadorial types in Geneva from ISOC arguing the
> opposite, but lets hope the argument that change is needed sticks. CS
should
> enforce that.

Which structural change recommendations in Internet governance is ISOC
supporting or recommending?

Thanks for engaging,



Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, 25 September 2005 9:17 PM
To: Ian Peter
Cc: wdrake at ictsd.ch; Governance; jeanette at wz-berlin.de; ajp at glocom.ac.jp;
mueller at syr.edu
Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight?

Hello Ian,

On 9/24/05, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> There is at least a strong chance that no firm structural recommendation
> will come from Prepcomm, but there seems at the same time (taking the
Chairs
> non-paper) an acknowledgement that some change is needed. I realize that
> there are a bunch of ambassadorial types in Geneva from ISOC arguing the
> opposite, but lets hope the argument that change is needed sticks. CS
should
> enforce that.

<ISOC ambassador hat on>

Actually the ISOC ambassadors are arguing no such thing.  We realise
that Inet Governance mechanisms need to include more (and better
informed) stakeholders.

What we are trying to put forth is the notion that WSIS is supposed to
be about connecting the unconnected, building a more inclusive
Information Society, ICT4D, etc.  IIRC, our consensus position is that
settling the ownership of the rootzone question will not make Internet
access any cheaper, more reliable or faster; nor will it connect the
unconnected, train folk on IT usage or positively impact any of the
other development issues that get lost when we focus on narrow IG
issues.

<ISOC ambassador hat off>

>
> Usually before change occurs a "burning platform for change" needs to be
> understood and realized. The burning platform for change here is:
>
> "US unilateral control of root zone policy is unacceptable for an
> international network. Period." (apologies to Ambassador Gross)

<person who daily sees the impact of lack of infrastructure in Africa hat
on>

You may be right about this. however, I think that a more fruiful use
of WSIS time, energy and monies would be to electrify remote
communities, build telecoms infrastructure, train local communites in
ICT usage, etc.

> There's some thoughts anyway. Good luck achieving anything next week! It
> will require a big dose of pragmatism, from what I am reading.

You are certainly correct on this point!

</hats>

--
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005
 

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