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

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Sotris, Jeffrey, Michael, Joop, and everyone. I've been away from the
lists for a long time. First of all I would like to commend and thank
everyone who have continued to fight for the rights of individual users and
domain name holders. While many times I know it gets frustrating, there are
those of us who appreciate your efforts on our behalf.

I plan to rejoin even though my time will be somewhat limited due to
progress in the Kidsearch Network, my first priority, but I would like to
become involved again. I am reading through the archives, but anyone willing
to update me on changes I need to know about, progress that has been made,
setbacks that have occurred, or any other information you are willing to
share to get me up to speed, I would appreciate it.

They can send it to missingkids@xxxxxxxxx

Chris McElroy
http://www.kidsearchnetwork.org
http://thingsthatjustpissmeoff.blogspot.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 6:11 PM
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
>
>
>