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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

I in part along with our members agree with Chris here.  The UN is
mostly
a very politically confused and bureaucracy riddled mess of an
organization
that can't accomplish its own set goals.  The oil for food program and
the
WTO, a UN organization which can't seem to get the message on essential
medicins is stark proof of their near worthlessness in getting something

accomplished correctly.

ICANN on the other hand has it's own self created and UN styled
bureaucracy that is having to ignore stakeholders/uesrs in favor of
registires and registrars which are contracted to ICANN anyway.
All one had to do is to read/review the recent .COM settelment
with Verisign to get the proper perspective.  However ICANN
is supposed to have oversight from DOC/NTIA, and it does.
The .xxx overide by DOC/NTIA indicates that at least they
are not compleately asleep at the switch, so to speak.

What we are looking at here and seems to me to be self
evident if you have been paying attention sense 1998 is that
still wants it's independance or carte blanche.  Yet DOC/NTIA
is not yet ready to give it to them.  Hence we are looking at the
lessor of two evils, ICANN vs UN via the ITU.

I disagree with Chirs to the degree that the UN has not the experiance
to do what ICANN does. The ITU, a UN organization has "some"
experiance to be sure.  But in my opinion, that experiance is far to
bureaucratic and far to removed from the real world to be effective
or efficient.

Therefor the solution seems to still be a third option is needed.  ICANN

could have effected such as part of it's structure in 2002, but the than

seated ICANN BoD decided that a top down managment structure
was what was best.  This has proven to a great degree to be far less
than satisfactory as many inside and outside of the US are very
dissatisfied with ICANN's leadership and how such leadership is
determined.  Hence again the great need for an At-Large that has
most of the power.  Vint Cerf and others are very much against
such a concept and have been sense ICANN's very beginnings.
The reasons why are many and vasrried, but all revolve around
money, decision making power, and ego's...

kidsearch wrote:

>    However, politically we may agree about iraq, this is off topic.
> The UN has no expertise or experience related to running the Internet.
> They have experience at running a bureaucracy which we do not need
> more of.
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: rbhauptman@xxxxxxx
>   To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 3:54 PM
>   Subject: Re: [ga] WSIS and its lack of transparency....
>
>
>   I think the UN is doing a fine job. It was the UN that urged ..no
> demanded ..that we not invade Iraq.  That there were No weapons of
> mass destruction and that it would be an illegal invasion.  But it was
> the American President..the Rightwing and despotic George W. Bush..
> who..along with the equally misguided Tony Blair..went into Iraq
> anyway.
>
>   The UN was terrific (and correct) as usual.
>
>   Rick Hauptman
>   Serving 41 Million Californians daily (we multiplied since
> yesterday)
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   To: rbhauptman@xxxxxxx; sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>   Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:25:50 -0400
>   Subject: Re: [ga] WSIS and its lack of transparency....
>
>
>   LOL. Love the signature.
>
>   But, on your point that how much worse could it be, well . . . it
> could be a lot worse. The UN can't get the things they are supposed to
> do now, right, how do you expect they can do better on this issue? I
> personally wouldn't like the UN to handle my laundry. That being said,
> I am open to discussions about an International Org running things as
> long as that would be their only purpose and not just part of some
> larger bureaucracy.
>
>   Chris McElroy, President,
>   Kidsearch Network
>   http://www.KidsearchNetwork.org
>   http://www.MissingChildrenBlog.com
>   http://www.RunawayTeens.org
>
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>     From: rbhauptman@xxxxxxx
>     To: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>     Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 12:16 AM
>     Subject: Re: [ga] WSIS and its lack of transparency....
>
>
>     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
> &#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
>
>
>
>
>

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