[governance] IANA transition - BR Gov comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal

[Seth Johnson]

I'm waiting on the second half of the discussion, on how the IANA
contracts would work "in a fair and equal manner for a global
constituency."

I would mostly note at this point that we have to also be attentive to
how the US is operating in relation to the UN agendas, employing them
in pursuit of its goals (including the IP maximalist concerns both
Parminder and Michael are concerned with).


Seth


On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 5:38 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> Hi Parminder,
>
> before you continue to confuse well intended but ill informed members of the broader IANA/ICANN/Multistakeholder Internet community, I recommend to study more in
> detail the four excellent studies by SSAC
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-071-en.pdf
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-069-en.pdf
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-068-en.pdf
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf
>
> For newcomers who want to get a first overview before they go into the details, I recommend the new IANA publication (see attachment).
>
> In the media we have a principle for good journalism which seperates facts and opinions. Bad journalism is mixing facts and opinions. Opinions are protected under Article 19 of the International Covenant of Political and Civil Rights. So everybody has a right to express her(his) ideological opinions and to argue for her/his case. Nothing is wrong with that. Even extreme opinions are protected, as long as they do not harm third parties. In contrary extreme opinions and hard fighting with arguments is needed to find the right way forward if a community is entering uncharted territory (which is the case with the IANA transition).
>
> There are always  people who (a.) want to keep the status quo, (b.) innovate and stumble forward or (c.) want moving backwards in (their) safe waters. But whatsoever: Any serious discussion of different opinions should be based on full knowledge of the various facets of an issue under discussion.
>
> There is an important difference here between a journalistic article and an academic paper: In journalism, it is common practice that you pick just one element which fits into your chain of arguments to justify your struggle for a certain outcome. In an academic paper you have to be neutral and to analyze all aspects, regardless if you like the facts or not. Furthermore, any proposed step has to be checked against unintended side-effects. Stresstests are an important element for that. Only with such an approach - called also SWOT (Strengh, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) - you will find reasonable and workable solutions which balance the interests of all involved parties (and makes everybody probably equally unhappy).
>
> Fortunately the two CCWG groups who are working now on the IANA transition and new ICANN accountability models have taken the more academic approach which - hopefully - will lead to rough consensus and a sustainable step forward into the "uncharted territory". The interim results are impressive. However there is still a long way to go. More voices are welcome to join the debate.
>
> Wolfgang

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