[governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda?

[jlfullsack]

Dear Parminder

I think you give us (I mean the CS committed in post-WSIS and FGI process) 
the "good track" and a suitable focus for the discussions to come.
I support your valuable input and agree on the questions you raised, 
particularly on the way CS should be present, active  and effective in the 
"post-ICANN" Internet governance.

Best
Jean-Louis


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "William Drake" 
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
Cc: "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>; "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda?


>
> William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>> I think one thing we could agree on as a brief statement is that if EU
>>> proposes its model during the OC, we could state that civil society,
>>> while
>>> looking towards an ICANN free of the JPA, has concerns about the
>>> specific
>>> model being proposed by EU. I think that reflects our thinking at this
>>> stage. (Ian)
>>
>> Probably it's not too helpful to say we have concerns and leave it
>> there, people might want to know what they are.  Is it that with
>> respect to the intergovernmental dimension, it's unclear what weight
>> G12 pronouncements would carry, what their scope might encompass, or
>> how decisions would be arrived at?  That it's a plurilateral rather
>> than broadly multilateral system, and that the selection process could
>> become a political nightmare?  That the precise relationship to and
>> implications for GAC/ICANN are unclear?  That the role of
>> nongovernmental stakeholders, if any, is unclear?  That the process of
>> devising this proposal was opaque and non-inclusive? Other aspects...?
>> (Bill)
>
> I agree that it is hardly of much consequence to just say that we have a
> lot of concerns. However, I also dont think the kind of concerns Bill
> lays out are enough to delve upon. These are mostly in the nature of
> getting clarifications of what Reding's proposal is really about, which
> of course is important. More important however is having some idea about
> our positions on at least some of the key aspects of her proposal, and
> communicating them.
>
> I dont think any of us has anything against an independent International
> Tribunal adjudicating ICAN  related issues rather than Californian
> courts. I think that it is a great proposal. Anyone against it (in which
> case pl give reasons)? IGC sponsored  a workshop on 'Trans-national
> Internet' last year, where a number of such trans-national issues that
> need adjudication came up.. Now when there is a clear proposal by one of
> the strongest players in the field (Reding cannot be speaking without EU
> backing) why do we show such a lack of political will to support what
> obviously, or at least in my opinion, is the best solution in this area.
> Has anyone a better suggestion?
>
> I think IGC can clearly support Reding's statement on two points - (1) A
> single government's control over the ICANN is untenable and (2) the idea
> of an independent International Tribunal to adjudicate ICANN and related
> issues of global IG.
>
> That brings us to the more controversial G 12 proposal. We need to
> analyse our issues with it, which could probably give the basis of a
> common position. Even if not so, it is best to discuss and analyse our
> issues with this proposal, so we know where we stand and what is the
> best way to go forward on this.
>
> The biggest problem from our viewpoint is - where does civil society
> come in. We should strongly raise that concern. But that is best done by
> suggesting what alternative model(s) we propose. In this context it is
> important to remember that WGIG models 1 and 3 do have civil society
> participation as advisors or observers. However, if we want them to be
> present in  a more substantial capacity, we need to indicate what would
> that be. And how can they be selected etc. We are at least clear that
> the present proposal is worse than the WGIG models 1 and 3. (It gives
> credit to my theory that more time we spend in 'suspended animation' on
> the major issue of global IG institution more civil society will lose,
> but about this later.)
>
> Carlton has raised the issue of G 12 excluding less powerful countries.
> This is not acceptable. It cant be like G 20  etc but more like UN
> bodies where members rotate on a regional basis with clear rules. I
> think that is what Reding means but we can ask for clarification.
> However, the issue is of such importance a larger body with more
> representation form across the world, in my opinion, will be better, if
> it does add to unwieldiness. We may have different views on this.
>
> Another issue is - would the proposed body just keep its mandate very
> narrowly on ICANN oversight issues, or be able/ ready to consider other
> key global IG issues which may need urgent attention, which at present
> are 'solved', if at all,  in an ad hoc and non-democratic manner serving
> the interests of dominant actors. Again, the cited WGIG models do
> include the possibility of a wider ambit of issues. We all know that
> Internet being uniquely global brings forth some uniquely global
> governance issues that may not be amenable to the substantive focus and/
> or the nature of processes of other global governance bodies. The
> enclosed contribution of Milton to the recent EU hearing provided a very
> good exposition of how ICANN oversight issues are intrinsically linked
> other Internet public policy issues and cannot be separated, an argument
> I have been repeatedly making on this list. This connectedness needs to
> be taken into account in proposing an ICANN oversight model.
>
> And lastly, how does such a proposed global Internet oversight/ policy
> body relate to the IGF. On this more later, but to just say that this
> too is an important issue, especially from civil society point of view.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance