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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

  Sorry, but indeed things with the internet under the UN/ITU/ISOC can
get
much worse as Sotiris's remarks indicate.  Given the mess the UN has
already
created for itself in the oil for food program and it's involvement in
selecting
contractors for rebuilding Afghanistan, ect., it seems very unwise for
the
UN to be taking control over the central elements of the internet,
especially
IP addressing and the root servers.

    This said if the UN member nations wish to develop it's own IT
internet infrastructure, that would be fine.  Yet as 70% of the UN's
budget is provided by the US, I believe that the funding of such
an endeavor would be difficult as the US under any administration
would likely be withheld unless significant give backs were agreed
upon by the general assembly.

rbhauptman@xxxxxxx wrote:

>    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
>
>

Regards,

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

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"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