[governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE

[parminder]

On Tuesday 28 May 2013 04:30 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 28 May 2013, at 12:19, Riaz Tayob wrote:
>
>> So Avri, what is your stance on DOC origination and ICANN control over CIR?
> Not sure what you mean by DOC origination.
>
> I do beleive, as I have said elsewhere, that DOC would just as soon hand the responsibilities over.  Just not to another governments or to a intergovernmental institution.

To whom, then? And when? I have proposed earlier that IGC writes to the 
US gov (it is not DOC, it is the US gov) that they forgo their oversight 
role to an international body.... We can always propose some such body, 
say, a technical board, with 10 members, 2 each from each geo-political/ 
geographic, region, elected from selected top technical academic 
institutions by rotation from each country in the region... any other 
suggestion is welcome... Elections from ALAC ?, something else? But we 
much act on what we believe or say.... Non action is simply another form 
of politics .

My proposal here is serious, and I propose that we as IGC begin work on 
it. What better timing then the forthcoming meeting of the WG on 
enhanced cooperation.

(And we will know if US really is quite ready to had over power, as you 
say it is....)

> I don't beleive that ICANN controls cIr, but rather that it control one form of names and has some influence over IP numbering, though by no means controlling inlfuence - talk to the RIRs about the control of numbers.
>
> As for ICANN it is in process of becoming a genuinely multistakeholder organization with a soft multistakeholder oversight model.  But I also beleive that it is not quite there yet and is not ready yet for full responsibility of the IANA process.  I see NTIA as the responsible adult in the room,

How hurtful to the democratic dignity of all non US-ians !! And of 
course UN or a UN body is not a 'responsible adult'.... thanks so much, 
especially coming from a US citizen.

>   and I see that responsibility as a holdover from the past.

Yes, the British told us, Indians, such things for a long time.... And 
now some right wing Hindu parties quote history to seek political 
supremacy, and corresponding subjugation of minority groups.... History 
is always very convenient to quote, especially since it is not around 
any more. To me, it is painful that US government is so openly credited 
with a legitimate 'historical role' in global IG by people of global 
civil society! What about UN's historical role in global governance, 
having seen us through so ably over the last many decades which saw such 
great progress in global prosperity, human rights and democracy. To what 
avail is all that! Do we really need to begin comparing US's global 
governance role in recent history with that of the UN?

>   I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN processes instead of judging it from outside,

Alternatively, one may ask, why all post-democratic 
multistakeholder-ists do not participate in the much better established 
movements for furthering democracy - from local self governance to 
global governance, rather than posit non democratic alternatives, like 
relying on 'responsible adults', and proposing that big business should 
have an equal role as democratically elected governments and civil 
society in governance functions.

parminder
> the better chance we will have of actually achieving  multistakeholder control over ICANN's narrow bit of turf.



> avri
>
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t