[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] Re: [Kofi Annan nominates IFGAdvisory Group

[Veni Markovski]

Hi.

At 10:38 AM 19.5.2006 '?.'ЪЪ┬Ж  +0900, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>I agree most of what Milton wrote, perhaps with more
>cautious tones than him.

I don't agree with "most of what Milton wrote".
Actually I read some bitterness between the 
lines, but may be I am wrong, or may be my 
understanding of English is different from yours.

>First, congratulations to those who are selected out of
>our nomination/recommendation, Adam, Gemma, Jeanette
>Qusai and Robin.

Absolutely - quite well done! Congratulations!

>But, what strikes me is, as Milton and many of you may feel the same way,
>dominance of government and "technical community" especially
>from ICANN stakeholders/operators, but very few from the Civil Society
>in a narrow sense.

Izumi, this strikes me, "CS in a narrow sense"? I 
am part of the CS, and I don't accept if someone 
will name is as part of the ICANN. I am a member 
of the Board for a term; I am not staff. I don't 
accept anyone to call me an "ICANN agent", and in 
fact I find this unfair and quite rude.
Now, if you look at 
http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IGF-themes.pdf 
you will find out that CS (in the field of 
critical Internet resources and public policy 
issues, related to IG) according to the IGP 
are... the IGP itself and ALAC? Is this CS in a [very] narrow sense?

There are people from different organizations, 
but they are staff, and they may have the right 
to represent them. See Theresa (ICANN), Matthew 
(ISOC), Patrik (IETF/IAB) - who, btw, is going to 
be on the ISOC Board from July 1st, and others 
representatives of the relevant international organizations.
But you seem to have missed something very 
important. See 
http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/ISOC%20Bulgaria.rtf 
. We suggested it, and the Secretariat obviously 
have listened to our recommendation.
The WSIS Para 62+ were clear, that 
"representatives of the relevant organizations" - 
ICANN, ISOC, ITU, UNESCO should be invited. Or at 
least this is how we read the document.
The fact that the AG also has people who are from 
other organizations - e.g. the Internet 
Governance Project of Milton & partners, shows 
that he does not really have ground for 
complaints. Thinking about it, Milton's project 
got 1 out of 6 people 
(http://internetgovernance.org/people.html), 
that's a good ratio. That's better than ISOC, 
where there are more than 6 people staff, and 
20,000+ members worldwide, but they have only 1 (Matthew) representative.


>While there is seemingly "consensus" not to discuss ICANN related issues
>here at IGF, but rather in the closed "enhanced cooperation" process,
>then why so many ICANN related folks are here?
>This is quite strange to me. Any explanation?

Again - everyone is ICANN-related here. What 
about Adam Peak? Isn't he now on the NomCom? :)

>Where are the spam, security, multilingual experts?

Check out 
http://www.cybersecuritycooperation.org/parvanov.html 
(search for "Internet Society" on that page). Or 
check http://veni.com/currentwork.html.

>I mean, from the CS: privacy, human right, free speech experts.

check out www.isoc.bg/kpd/


>I think the Civil society memebrs there in Geneva should
>express our initial serious concerns about the composition
>and the direction of the MAG.

We could do that, but let's not forget something 
else - CS got 5 out of 15 people suggested. 
that's 1 out of every 3. Not bad. And let's not 
forget that some of the suggested people were 
actually involved in the WSIS, WGIG, etc. Which 
means they can continue to contribute in one or 
another capacity. Or am I wrong?

best,
Veni