[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] Re: [Kofi Annan nominates
IFGAdvisory Group
Carlos Afonso
ca at rits.org.br
Fri May 19 15:39:30 BST 2006
Well, in a sort of ironic way, Bill rephrased what MM is trying to
convey in somewhat harsher terms, and I did in statistical terms :)
History: what leads me to group ISOC and other people into the "Icann
system" bundle is precisely the performance described by Bill. In the
WGIG process, people linked to the Icann system (from RIRs, from the
Board, from ISOC) consistently sided with proposals tending to "hands
off the Internet governance as it is" or "do not mess with what is not
broken" or "let the private sector do it". So, OK, several of these
might be members of civil society organizations (Icann itself included
-- whatever the manipulations and subordinations, it is a California
NGO). In the CMSI process as a whole, a similar behavior by this group
was clear, usually getting aligned with USA positions and the business
community positions -- resulting in resisting bravely to the IGF idea
until almost the end (when it was de facto approved as the European
"permanent assembly" finally budged, they changed sides rapidly...).
So, indeed, it is curious to see so many of them in the MAG now after
this antagonistic record. BTW, Adam is *not* to be bundled with this
group -- I did not count him as part of the "system" and I am glad he
has been chosen.
fraternal rgds
--c.a.
William Drake wrote:
> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people]
>
> Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message!
> _______________________________________
>
> Good morning Veni,
>
> I'm of course delighted to see that organizations and governments that opposed
> the creation of the IGF and/or don't want it to do anything "controversial" or
> "disruptive" like discuss problems with and public interest reforms of existing
> governance mechanisms will now play key roles in defining it agenda, and to
> learn that your leadership position in ICANN decision making has no bearing
> whatsoever on your views of ICANN-related issues. As one of our civil society
> representatives on the mAG, could you outline which of the positions taken by
> the IG Caucus and CS Plenary over the past three years or advocated in the
> various CS proposals for the IGF agenda you will be advocating on our behalf?
>
> Look forward to working with you on this!
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> Quoting Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com>:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> At 10:38 AM 19.5.2006 '?.'ÿÿˆö +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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>
>
> *******************************************************
> William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch
> Director, Project on the Information
> Revolution and Global Governance
> Graduate Institute for International Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> President, Computer Professionals for
> Social Responsibility
> http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
> *******************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>
--
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br
********************************************
* Projeto Sacix -- Pacote Linux orientado *
* a projetos de inclusão digital com *
* software livre e de código aberto, *
* mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o *
* Coletivo Digital. *
* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br *
********************************************
More information about the Plenary
mailing list