[governance] for information
International Ivission
ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr
Mon Jul 28 19:59:28 EDT 2014
Quite an interesting report but the rapporteur did not tell us if the present configuration of the UN with five countries dominating the world will be not influence decisions on the new IG setup of WICANN.
Another interesting element in the report is the complaint on the domination of the Internet ecosystem by American companies and the drop of EU companies from 12 to 8. Innovation and creativity comes from the private sector. The question here is: Why the drop of EU companies, who is responsible?
Where is the place of Africa, who cares?
Is the Internet an EU-American rival thing?
___________________________________
Asama Abel Excel
President and CEO
I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL
3rd Floor immeuble Centre Médical de Bessengué
Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué
Douala Cameroon
E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net
T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76 (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama, My blogWeb: www.ivission.net
Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission
Facebook: ivission.internationl
Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission
NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission
Le Lundi 28 juillet 2014 16h57, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> a écrit :
On Monday 28 July 2014 07:45 PM, françoise wrote:
Dear gov at list-ers,
>Please find the link to a summary of the recent Report from the French Senate and the pdf doc :
>http://www.senat.fr/fileadmin/Fichiers/Images/commission/MCI_nouvelle_gouvernance_de_l_internet/EUROPE_TO_THE_RESCUE_OF_THE_INTERNET_english_summary.pdf
The points made in this report have great congruence with points
made in the principles of the Just Net Coalition at http://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration
parminder
It's an official Report, but who knows its destiny ???
>Best regards,
>FMF
>
>
>
>
>Le 28 juil. 14 à 13:28, parminder a écrit :
>
David
I think that NTIA divesting itself of the IANA
authority is a very good thing. However, withdrawal of
direct executive control over the root zone is hardly
enough. The root zone should be free from all legal
and legislative controls of any one country, including
any possibility of unilateral application any such
control in the future. This is the single most
important issue with regard to determining where
should the IANA authority now vest.
The reason I consider the NTIA transition process to
be a sham is that its framing of the IANA issue is
deliberately misleading. It misleadingly declares IANA
'function' to be a merely clerical one. This is such
an affront to the global community which knows very
well that for the last 15 years or so the single most
prominent geopolitical issue in global Internet
governance has been the issue of a single country's
oversight of the Internet, representing in its IANA
authority.
How can this major political issue be rendered as a
clerical and technical issue by a simple sleigh of
hand. This to me is in fact cheating.
However, the IANA process is being able to fool only
those who are ready or even eager to be fooled. It
does not actually take away one of the major global IG
issues from the table. We all know that IANA authority
will now be handed over to ICANN. Yes, US leaving the
executive control over IANA is good. However, ICANN
cannot be left politically unsupervised. (In fact, US
jurisdiction will continue to undertake ICANN's
political/ legal oversight.) ICANN should be
incorporated under international law, giving it full
immunity from US jurisdiction, and be put under clear
rules based oversight of an appropriate global body,
which need not be typical inter-governmental.
And, yes, people have given specific institutional
models to achieve this. See for instance the
submission of Just Net Coalition to NetMundial at http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164 . Specifically see point 3 of the proposed institutional roadmap.
regards
parminder
On Monday 28 July 2014 12:13 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Parminder, On Jul 27, 2014, at 1:36 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>I dont see why we should not already be seeking such a body
>No one is stopping you (or whoever 'we' is in the above). You (or whoever 'we' is in the above) just need to come up with something that is at least as trusted by resolver operators of the world as the current system, then convince those operators to make use of that zone maintenance/signing/distribution system. My suspicion is that this will be a hard sell for a variety of reasons, however the first step is to actually come up with a proposal that resolver operators (not politicians) might look at and decide if they want to play along.
>In fact we now already have a US court decision to sieze .ir from the root file.
>As far as I am aware, despite that court decision, .IR remains in the root and nothing has changed with respect to its registration information.
>IANA transition issue is supposed to be basically about these huge current and impending problems.
>My understanding of the transition of the stewardship of IANA is that it is about removing NTIA from its current role. That seems to be a more focused scope that what you believe the IANA transition is supposed to be about. I'm unsure where you derived your view of the IANA transition, but you might want to reread http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions.
>The fact that we have a complete sham being carried out right now in the name of IANA transition is something at least civil society should sit up and reflect about...
>As far as I can tell, NTIA and the various folks involved in the transition appear to be are quite serious about wanting to remove NTIA from its current role. I'm unsure why you would consider it a 'sham' unless of course you're accusing the transition participants of not pursuing your personal view of the transition. If that is indeed the case, then I suspect the problem does not really lie with them. Regards,
-drc
____________________________________________________________
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
Françoise Massit-Folléa
f.massit at orange.fr
Mob. 06 74 51 67 65
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140729/7f3404ad/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list