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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sotiris and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

Although I find that Sotiris's remarks and/or expressed statements
are for the most part in agreement with our INEGroup members
position, WGIG is a farce and was from it's very beginnings
as the council was in no way representative of those it proported
to represent as said council was "Selected" and not elected,
as well as has been far less than open and transparent.  Hence
WGIG's conclusions are thus skewed accordingly.

sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 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
> – and more specifically the background report – 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’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’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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obediance of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827