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

[sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Chris,

Welcome back!  I am glad to see that you decided to come back and help us
(however you can) in our ongoing efforts to establish a credible and
efficacious voice for individual Internet users within ICANN.  Along with
the archives (which have been pretty sparse of late), may I recommend you
peruse the excellent CircleID web site (http://circleid.com) as well as
Professor Froomkin's http://icannwatch.com for a synopsis of recent and
not so recent ICANN developments.

I definitely look forward to resuming the dialogue with you and others who
have an interest in how the Internet DNS and IP addressing is governed and
maintained, especially where the international public interest is
concerned.

Be Well,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

P.S. I truly appreciate and commend your efforts in establishing
http://www.kidsearchnetwork.org  Good man!

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>