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

Fri May 19 15:51:34 BST 2006

During the IGF consultation this morning Brazil noted ICANN's heavy presence
on the advisory group. Specifically mentioned 4 ICANN people (I think he
means 3 board members + Theresa) and suggested it was therefore logical
ICANN should be a key issue for discussion.  Not many takers in the room for
the suggestion, but if ICANN did lobby for this outcome then I wonder if it
might backfire -- so many people on the MAG serves as a good reminder that
ICANN exists in this space and is a major player. Did someone just tie a
"kick me" label to ICANN's back?

Carlos, thanks for your comment.  My involvement with ICANN is as a member
of its nominating committee: we select people to serve in leadership
positions in the organization.

I would like even more of you to be involved in ICANN and you can do this by
submitting a Statement of Interest to the NomCom, please see <
http://www.icann.org/committees/nom-comm/>

Adam

On 5/19/06, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
>
> 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      *
> ********************************************
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
Email from Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling.  Please reply
to  <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> Thanks!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20060519/190ef471/attachment.htm