[WSIS CS-Plenary] Civil Society Priorities Document

[Adam Peake]

The paragraph should be deleted.

ICANN is far from perfect. It's policy making structures are not as 
open as we would like. I've been involved in "Internet Governance" 
for 6 or 7 years. Izumi and I were members of the only consistent 
civil society effort that tried to defend the right to election and 
direct representation -- so please do not think I am some kind of 
ICANN apologist.

While ICANN is not the organization we hoped it would be, its policy 
making processes are quite open to Civil Society (certainly compared 
to the alternatives.)  We can and do have a direct influence (I know, 
I've done it.) And recent changes to ICANN policy making processes 
indicate that there will be more opportunities in the future, not 
less.  If we were in a debating hall I would be more than happy to 
stand up and list problems with ICANN.

But this week, all this is besides the point. It's not the issue.  We 
are here reacting to an effort by some governments to take control of 
Internet naming and addressing.  They believe they should have 
sovereign rights not only to TLDs but to IP address allocation and to 
control of the root server system (read the working documents and 
contributions.) Other governments want to see these functions become 
the responsibility of an "inter-governmental organization." It is 
quite clear that the organization they are thinking of is the ITU.

What's at stake this week is very simple. Will the draft documents 
support the status quo, ICANN? Or will they support change? By asking 
for "re-examination" we will support change. Governments like Syria 
will take us as supporting their efforts. Governments and the ITU 
will use our words to their advantage. There is no plan C.  There is 
nothing other than the two options.  If you want to risk supporting 
ITU and government control of Internet naming and addressing, leave 
the paragraph in place.

I very strongly request that **the paragraph should be deleted.**

Many thanks,

Adam



At 9:58 PM -0400 7/13/03, Sasha Costanza-Chock 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.
>
>sasha costanza-chock
>
>
>>From: Adam Peake
>>I request that the following paragraph be deleted from the Civil
>>Society Priorities Document:
>
>"To these ends, the current management of Internet names and numbers
>and other related mechanisms should be re-examined with the full
>participation of all stakeholders in light of serving public
>interests and compatibility with human rights standards."
>
>It can only serve to support the arguments of governments that wish
>to gain control over Internet resource allocation, and others hoping
>to see the ITU or some other inter-governmental organization take
>control of Internet naming and addressing.
>
>It should be deleted.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Adam Peake
>GLOCOM Tokyo
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary


--