[WSIS CS-Plenary] Civil Society Priorities Document

[Izumi AIZU]

Bill and all, I appreciate your hard work and good result.

But for the part Adam pointed out, I share the same concern.

I have been involved with ICANN since the very beginning, and mostly
around "AtLarge" issues, and am still engaged as the interim member
of the AtLarge Advisory Committee.

I agree that the current ICANN framework is far from the best solution and
especially the civil society/individual user participation has been
not fully accepted as we wanted to be.

Yet the current draft for Declaration and Action Plans prepared by WISI
secretariat are quite dangerous in that it may lead stronger government
intervention, or control under the "intergovernmental" body if adopted.

So the current language of the civil society document may further invite
this government involvement in the way, under the name of "public interest"
and all stakeholders, that further marginalize the civil society participation,
I am afraid.

That is the point Adam is trying to explain, I guess. And I share Veni's
opinion, too.

I hope you could consider this and will delete that para.

ICANN is certainly not perfect at all, but the government camps trying to
change the current framework is much much worse.

Please remember that many innovations and freedom enjoyed around
Internet have so far been made possible thanks to no government
regulation/intervention.

IETF, ICANN, W3C et all are all part of this new ways of managing the Net.

Even though they did not have "enough" civil society participation, the
Internet Community did much better job than government/industry-led 
standardizing
body such as ITU.

izumi

At 09:04 03/07/14 +0300, you wrote:

>>I'm not so sure, Adam...do you feel that the current management of internet
>>names and addresses is the best system for allocating what is essentially a
>>global commons, in the public interest? If so, please explain why a
>>byzantine structure like ICANN, geared towards corporate needs, is the best
>>system. If not, it seems entirely appropriate to raise the question.
>
>this is my personal opinion.
>
>it's not the best, but
>a) there is no better created (and hence the governments will take 
>immediate control)
>b) if there is no ICANN, for sure the control over domain and numbers 
>will not by a miracle go to the Civil Society or the privacy groups, or 
>the scientists; it will go to the governments. And there isn't anything 
>worse than that as of today.
>
>veni
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary