[Governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Civil Society Priorities Document

[Veni Markovski]

>While I don't wholeheartedly endorse the ITU as a replacement for ICANN, I 
>do welcome the competition between these two institutions.  The most 
>promising scenario that I can see is Internet governance split between 
>ICANN and the ITU.  That is quite feasible: ICANN could make global policy 
>for generic domains (e.g. dot-com), and the ITU can coordinate policy for 
>country code domains (e.g. dot-us).  Users would have a choice between 
>which regime they favored.

With all the respect, I can not agree with that.
Governments should not be allowed in anyway to have solely control over 
anything, related to Internet.
I have lots of experience where the Bulgarian government tried to gain 
control over .bg TLDA, then on IP addresses and Internet names, then on 
content. I don't want to repeat those mistakes that they did, and I don't 
believe there's a strong civil society in other countries, as there was in 
mine, which managed to get rid of that. And, of course, the Bulgarian 
Supreme Administrative Court also helped.

Regarding what ICANN did last year, I am not aware of, would be happy to 
get more information from you, but also - as a director - would be 
interested rather than learning about bad experience from last year, to 
understand what are your proposals to change ICANN towards a better working 
organization with larger representation of users, etc.

>So back to our document: If our current language implicitly favors the 
>ITU, that seems appropriate.  It is in the interest of civil society to 
>support ITU to the point where it might join ICANN in Internet governance.

so, I don't think anything supporting ITU is in the interest of the civil 
society or the users. If we are to replace one control with another, then 
we should aim at having a better one. ITU is a worse one, for sure. 
Wherever inter-governmental is mentioned, that's bad.


v.