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

[ian.peter at ianpeter.com]

Let's try and interpret it a little bit differently -

I for one welcome the fact that both ICANN and ISOC have been brought to the
table on this and are well represented. I wouldn't quite describe most of the
chosen representatives as the "technical community" however. I'm glad 
also that
a diversity of the views within the broad ICANN community will be represented.

The current committee is not surprising if the agenda is what is was when
Internet governance first hit the WSIS agenda. And if the agenda is UN
involvement in current governance structures, it's not a bad committee to
discuss this sensibly and look for some more appropriate avenues for
participation. I interpret this committee as indicating that that is the real
agenda.

I think to a degree we had thought of this as something of a "Program 
Committee"
and that WSIS was a done deal that left ICANN untouched. But now I don't think
this is a Program Committee primarily.

Despite some of the very good individual talents in the committee, I think it
will result in the range of concerns which should be addressed being narrowed
rather than broadened.

That being said, I agree with Izumi that it would be good to communicate
concerns (or at least ask some good questions) about the composition and
direction of the MAG.

Ian Peter





Quoting Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>:

> I agree most of what Milton wrote, perhaps with more
> cautious tones than him.
>
> First, congratulations to those who are selected out of
> our nomination/recommendation, Adam, Gemma, Jeanette
> Qusai and Robin.
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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?
>
> Where are the spam, security, multilingual experts?
>
> I mean, from the CS: privacy, human right, free speech experts.
>
> I think the Civil society memebrs there in Geneva should
> express our initial serious concerns about the composition
> and the direction of the MAG.
>
> izumi
>
> At 18:09 06/05/18 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>> Carlos:
>>
>> >>> ca at rits.org.br 5/18/2006 5:11 PM >>>
>> >This is the distribution of the 45 members (not counting Nitin), as I
>>
>> >see it:
>> >
>> >19 from governments
>> >10 from business
>> >09 from the Icann system (including ISOC)
>> >07 from civil society
>>
>> Here is my perspective on the composition of the MAG:
>> http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/18/226205&mode=thread
>> ____________________________________________________________
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>