[governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday's caucus meeting

[Raul Echeberria]

carlos a. afonso wrote:

>People,
>
>.....
>  
>
.......

>I am afraid the presentation by Bill Drake is based on a vision which is
>not shared by many civil society organizations. We understand we do not
>want a "revolution" -- and this is mostly consensus -- but we need some
>significant changes in the mechanisms, first, to consider the set of
>priority issues which are not in the current ICANN-based system, and
>second, to take into account the need for practical actions regarding
>paragraph 48 of the WGIG report, among other reasons. If we endorse the
>statement as a consensus, we are in practice almost doing what ICANN
>wants us to do, ie., defend the creation of an innocuous
>consultative/advisory forum which might never be really taken seriously.
>
>  
>
Dear friend Carlos:

As far as I understand, you, as all of the WGIG members supported the 
proposal regarding the Forum. I don't understand why you say what you 
say now if you didn't object the WGIG recommendation.
Your perception regarding the Forum is just your perception, others 
think that the Forum will be an important improvement for civil society 
organizations and for developing countries and think that the Forum 
could be something not innocuous. . Then, I think that we should be more 
careful before undermine the Forum idea.

BTW, I have not seen any new idea about how to implement a making policy 
forum. Brazilian delegation has expressed concerns regarding many issues 
related with new gTLDs. (i.e. .travel and .xxx) , I can not imagine how 
a global forum could deal with this kind of issues. I think that it is 
not enough to propose a decision making forum if there are not proposals 
about what are the kind of issues that the Forum would deal with, and 
how the forum would deal with them.
On the other hand, it is very dangerous, specially for civil society 
organizations, to support the creation of a making policy forum, without 
clear scope and limits.

>I understand the opening statement by Adam tried to show this did not
>represent consensus, but I did a survey later on among Southern
>delegates (Brazil, India, Iran, Cuba among others) and most of them
>understood otherwise. Many of these delegates also wrongly associate
>model 2 of the WGIG report with the civil society caucus -- we must
>recall model 2 was built under the influence of ICANN-related people and
>business reps in the WGIG. 
>
I can't endorse what you say here.
We agreed in the WGIG that we would not say who supported each model. 
So, I can not speak about other people, but I can speak on behalf of myself.
I don't consider my self an "ICANN-related people" (and doubtfully I am 
a business rep.) and I supported model 2 in the understanding that, 
model 2, combined with the idea of the global forum and the 
implementation of the Genva principles in every Internet related 
organizations, is sincerley the best option.  I supported model 2, of 
course, in a good faith.

>Do we really want this perception to stay?
>What will be our consensus position?
>
>Just to make clear, my position (to which the Brazilian position has
>basically converged) was expressed in my "parallel" paper written during
>the last months of the WGIG. 
>
I read your paper and also know the Brazilian position, and I don't see 
the possibility that that positoin could become a consensus position of CS.

With all my respect.

Raúl




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