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

[rbhauptman@xxxxxxx]

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
– 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