ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] WSIS and its lack of transparency....


It's called participation. It's within reasonable posting limits set up for this list. Your personal digs mean nothing and contribute nothing. At least I stay on topic. Who should I compare you to? Are you suggesting that the posting limits be changed? Make a motion. Don't like that I post to the list too often? unsubscribe. Other than those suggestions, I can only request you to stay on topic and not be too obsessed with my posting addiction.


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: rbhauptman@xxxxxxx 
  To: kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 7:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [ga] WSIS and its lack of transparency....


  Now I know why you left the list, the compunction to respond to each and every message (much like the loquacious Jefsey).

  Ricksey 
   
  -----Original Message-----
  From: kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  To: rbhauptman@xxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:49:47 -0400
  Subject: Re: [ga] WSIS and its lack of transparency....


  However, politically we may agree about iraq, this is off topic. The UN has no expertise or experience related to running the Internet. They have experience at running a bureaucracy which we do not need more of.


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: rbhauptman@xxxxxxx 
    To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 3:54 PM
    Subject: Re: [ga] WSIS and its lack of transparency....


    I think the UN is doing a fine job. It was the UN that urged ..no demanded ..that we not invade Iraq.  That there were No weapons of mass destruction and that it would be an illegal invasion.  But it was the American President..the Rightwing and despotic George W. Bush.. who..along with the equally misguided Tony Blair..went into Iraq anyway.  

    The UN was terrific (and correct) as usual.

    Rick Hauptman
    Serving 41 Million Californians daily (we multiplied since yesterday)
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    To: rbhauptman@xxxxxxx; sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:25:50 -0400
    Subject: Re: [ga] WSIS and its lack of transparency....


    LOL. Love the signature. 

    But, on your point that how much worse could it be, well . . . it could be a lot worse. The UN can't get the things they are supposed to do now, right, how do you expect they can do better on this issue? I personally wouldn't like the UN to handle my laundry. That being said, I am open to discussions about an International Org running things as long as that would be their only purpose and not just part of some larger bureaucracy.

    Chris McElroy, President, 
    Kidsearch Network
    http://www.KidsearchNetwork.org
    http://www.MissingChildrenBlog.com
    http://www.RunawayTeens.org




    ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: rbhauptman@xxxxxxx 
      To: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
      Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 12:16 AM
      Subject: Re: [ga] WSIS and its lack of transparency....


      I can't say that I'm an expert on ICANN and ALAC issues, but I don't think I understand your dismissing of the UN option.  If it's already so darn bad with the US controlling everything (and from what you and so many on these lists say it is), then how bad could it be if the UN were involved.  I mean it stinks right now right...so if the UN idea failed then we'd be no worse off than we are right now.  In that case I say hey Give it a Try.  It can't hurt..... 

      Rick Hauptman

      CA Democratic Party Internet Caucus
      (representing 40 Million CA residents) 
       
      -----Original Message-----
      From: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
      To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
      Sent: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
      Subject: [ga] WSIS and its lack of transparency....


As a longtime AtLarge member and participant in ICANN's public fora, I
have been interested in all Internet governance developments both within
and outside of ICANN (and IANA) since 1998. Yes, I too have been
repeatedly disappointed by ICANN's increasingly exclusionary nature and
the dismemberment of the original AtLarge and the non-functioning and
largely irrelevant ALAC as it is currently constituted.   So, needless to
say, I followed the recent WGIG meetings and read the final report
(http://www.wgig.org/) with interest, and I've continued following the
ongoing WSIS process as a whole.  The following is a quote from the
ISOC@WSIS blog which is to be found at http://geneva.isoc.org/blogs/wsis/
and I bring it to your attention because of the remarks relating to the
"lack of transparency and participation" evident throughout the WSIS
process by ISOC representatives.  The remarked lack of a multistakeholder
approach is quite disturbing.  Some members of this ICANN GA mailing list
have repeated calls for a supplanting of ICANN by the United Nations; a
move that I believe would lead to an even more byzantine Net governance
process/structure than ICANN, and would probably serve to turn the
Internet into a paradise of cronyism where activities like the notorious
UN "Oil For Food" program would be free to proliferate.  Form your own
conclusions:

--------

"It came to my mind that most of the big ideas in this process are coming
from the Civil Society, the private sector and the Internet community. CS
has been organizing a number of meetings regarding different subjects:
Internet governance, privacy, childhood, gender issues, education, digital
divide and press freedom, just no name a few.

Of course, most of the ideas under discussion in the WSIS process come
from the WGIG report. In that group, several stakeholders discussed their
views and thoughts about the Internet Government Issue. That report
&#8211; and more specifically the background report &#8211; shows a myriad
of ideas and suggest the existence of a fructiferous debate, which must be
commended.

The inclusion and debate of ideas coming from all who have interest in the
process enrich its results and represent a milestone in the policy
development. The Geneva declaration acknowledges the benefits of this
framework, and promotes it.

However, this process is not being a multistakeholder process so far. Much
has being said about the ICANN&#8217;s lack of transparency and
participation, but here at Nations, the non government stakeholders have
had fifteen (15) minutes to express their views, and they didn&#8217;t get
a seat in those places where the real wording is being decided.

To achieve that transparency, openness and a real multistakeholder
approach - that has characterized the development of the Internet until
these days -, the different stakeholders should be able to participate at
all levels of the process, and not only observe and submit comments from
time to time."

----

So, I guess the contrast between ICANN and the developing proposal for a
UN Internet Governance schema is akin to jumping out of the frying pan and
into the fire...

Be Well All,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>