[bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14

Sun Mar 16 08:27:31 EDT 2014

Hi Mawaki,

Thank you for taking the initiative and putting in the effort. In my
personal view, IGC should be strongly concerned about the policy
making mechanisms of both this change the its future thus this should
be well mentioned.

It is very unclear of how this model will evolve in the future. Will
ICANN continue to be that body that manages the IANA function, what is
the future of IANA then?

Will IANA and ICANN be integrated into one organizational model and
how will this organization be moved out of the US and that brings us
back to the initial discussions on the IGC list about the various
possible models including one where ICANN be located to Geneva and
thereof act as an International organization and go into agreements,
treaty or non-treaty bindings with the participation of various
multilateral or bilateral, civil society, technical community and
private sector organizations and bodies.

It is also important to see how Governments are reacting to this and
the Singapore ICANN Public Meeting will be a good space to see how the
GAC responds or the statements that come out of there.

This is a whole new process and we have to find a way to keep IGC
involved inside out of the present and future of this transition where
IGC also holds ground in all policy development processes of this new
form of Internet Governance of the Domain and Naming Space of the
Internet.

As far as the issue of primary Internet organizations are concerned,
that role has evolved to their present state and the Domain and IP
owners, users, consumers or whatever the human role in the
transactional value of domains be, is very primary and important so
that cannot be left to just mentioning Internet organizations as
primary, the human being or user or consumer is primary and thats who
makes this whole system work and creates the demand for this political
economy to operate.

The new role of ICANN or any for the operation and management of an
internationalized and independent domain name space beyond the control
of any nation requires that stakeholders are clearly mentioned and
brought into such a space on equal footing and grounds. That is not
the case as such.

The present ICANN community development processes do inhibit
participation from across the world and though there are some
productive efforts in place but they are not abundant.

Mawaki, when you say [consideration to the concerns and views of
non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies],
that becomes the version of ICANN itself and a terminology that it
uses to create a crack between the Non-Profit or Non-Private Sector
groups that work consistently to find common grounds to work together
but are subject to hierarchy.

IF we look at the present state of the Board of ICANN, you will find a
great deal of imbalance that I have already mentioned.

The statement needs to be reviewed to represent a collective voice of
IGC and in its own words rather than terminology incorporated from
ICANN lingo.

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> Yes, Jean!
>
>
>
>
> ------------
> C. A. Afonso
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> Date: 16-03-2014 06:28 (GMT-03:00)
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>,Mawaki
> Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
> Cc: Deirdre Williams
> <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
>
>
> Hi, I support the changes that Ian proposes. I have one further
> suggestion which concerns the following para:
>
> It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term 'multistakeholder'
> is not reduced to mean 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' [ IP
> or"private sector led"] but is rather open to embrace a
> 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>
> Could we simplify this sentence to the effect that the future model must
> ensure that neither governments nor any single stakeholder group can
> dominate the policy process?
>
> Jeanette
>
> Am 16.03.14 01:42, schrieb Ian Peter:
>> Just to outline some of the issues behind some of my suggested changes ;
>> 1. While happy to endorse "multistakeholder" as a step forward for these
>> particular functions, I am not sure we want to endorse it as a
>> one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance. Hence my
>> first suggested change below.
>> 2. I wouldn't describe the role of technical organisations as "primary"
>> - administrative perhaps?
>> 3. Perhaps we can word better the section as regards meaning of
>> multistakeholder and our concerns this could be a mask for dominance of
>> certain groups.
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *From:* Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15 AM
>> *To:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com> ; Internet Governance
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
>> announcement of March 14
>> Hi Mawaki,good start.
>> I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my
>> thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few
>> in line comments and suggested alternatives.
>> *From:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM
>> *To:* Internet Governance <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> *Subject:* [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
>> announcement of March 14
>> Dear All,
>> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
>> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
>> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
>> concerns.
>> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>> ---
>> IGC Draft Press Release
>>
>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
>> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
>> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>> functions.  [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase
>> of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
>> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship].
>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
>> multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the
>> Internet] [IP -2.  these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a]
>
>> particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
>> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired
>> outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant
>> by members and subject to what the following actually entails: "Meet the
>> needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA
>> services"] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to
>> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
>> proposal to finalize this transition].
>>
>> IP I would leave last bracketed section out
>>
>> While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and
>> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
>> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views
>> of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies.
>> Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the
>> extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including
>> due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of
>> Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term
>> 'multistakeholder' is not reduced to mean
>> 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' [ IP or"private sector led"] but is
>
>> rather open to embrace a 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>>
>> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
>> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit  a truly global
>
>> governance institution - with a constituency and a customer base that
>> actually is global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses
>
>> must be found to the concern that while achieving effective
>> accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should
>> not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of
>> others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet
>> stakeholders].
>>
>> [Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
>
>> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance(www.netmundial.br
>> <http://www.netmundial.br>) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise
>
>> that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal
>> the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that
>> meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in
>> the coordination of the Internet's domain name system].
>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>
>> March xx, 2014.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa

-------------- 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