During the IGF consultation this morning Brazil noted ICANN's heavy presence on the advisory group. Specifically mentioned 4 ICANN people (I think he means 3 board members + Theresa) and suggested it was therefore logical ICANN should be a key issue for discussion. Not many takers in the room for the suggestion, but if ICANN did lobby for this outcome then I wonder if it might backfire -- so many people on the MAG serves as a good reminder that ICANN exists in this space and is a major player. Did someone just tie a "kick me" label to ICANN's back?
<br><br><br>Carlos, thanks for your comment. My involvement with ICANN is as a member of its nominating committee: we select people to serve in leadership positions in the organization.<br><br>I would like even more of you to be involved in ICANN and you can do this by submitting a Statement of Interest to the NomCom, please see <
<a href="http://www.icann.org/committees/nom-comm/">http://www.icann.org/committees/nom-comm/</a>> <br><br>Adam<br><br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/19/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Carlos Afonso</b> <
<a href="mailto:ca@rits.org.br">ca@rits.org.br</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Well, in a sort of ironic way, Bill rephrased what MM is trying to
<br>convey in somewhat harsher terms, and I did in statistical terms :)<br><br>History: what leads me to group ISOC and other people into the "Icann<br>system" bundle is precisely the performance described by Bill. In the
<br>WGIG process, people linked to the Icann system (from RIRs, from the<br>Board, from ISOC) consistently sided with proposals tending to "hands<br>off the Internet governance as it is" or "do not mess with what is not
<br>broken" or "let the private sector do it". So, OK, several of these<br>might be members of civil society organizations (Icann itself included<br>-- whatever the manipulations and subordinations, it is a California
<br>NGO). In the CMSI process as a whole, a similar behavior by this group<br>was clear, usually getting aligned with USA positions and the business<br>community positions -- resulting in resisting bravely to the IGF idea
<br>until almost the end (when it was de facto approved as the European<br>"permanent assembly" finally budged, they changed sides rapidly...).<br><br>So, indeed, it is curious to see so many of them in the MAG now after
<br>this antagonistic record. BTW, Adam is *not* to be bundled with this<br>group -- I did not count him as part of the "system" and I am glad he<br>has been chosen.<br><br>fraternal rgds<br><br>--c.a.<br><br>William Drake wrote:
<br>> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people]<br>><br>> Click <a href="http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/">
http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/</a> to access automatic translation of this message!<br>> _______________________________________<br>><br>> Good morning Veni,<br>><br>> I'm of course delighted to see that organizations and governments that opposed
<br>> the creation of the IGF and/or don't want it to do anything "controversial" or<br>> "disruptive" like discuss problems with and public interest reforms of existing<br>> governance mechanisms will now play key roles in defining it agenda, and to
<br>> learn that your leadership position in ICANN decision making has no bearing<br>> whatsoever on your views of ICANN-related issues. As one of our civil society<br>> representatives on the mAG, could you outline which of the positions taken by
<br>> the IG Caucus and CS Plenary over the past three years or advocated in the<br>> various CS proposals for the IGF agenda you will be advocating on our behalf?<br>><br>> Look forward to working with you on this!
<br>><br>> Best,<br>><br>> Bill<br>><br>> Quoting Veni Markovski <<a href="mailto:veni@veni.com">veni@veni.com</a>>:<br>><br>>> Hi.<br>>><br>>> At 10:38 AM 19.5.2006 '?.'ÿÿˆö +0900, Izumi AIZU wrote:
<br>>>> I agree most of what Milton wrote, perhaps with more<br>>>> cautious tones than him.<br>>> I don't agree with "most of what Milton wrote".<br>>> Actually I read some bitterness between the
<br>>> lines, but may be I am wrong, or may be my<br>>> understanding of English is different from yours.<br>>><br>>>> First, congratulations to those who are selected out of<br>>>> our nomination/recommendation, Adam, Gemma, Jeanette
<br>>>> Qusai and Robin.<br>>> Absolutely - quite well done! Congratulations!<br>>><br>>>> But, what strikes me is, as Milton and many of you may feel the same way,<br>>>> dominance of government and "technical community" especially
<br>>> >from ICANN stakeholders/operators, but very few from the Civil Society<br>>>> in a narrow sense.<br>>> Izumi, this strikes me, "CS in a narrow sense"? I<br>>> am part of the CS, and I don't accept if someone
<br>>> will name is as part of the ICANN. I am a member<br>>> of the Board for a term; I am not staff. I don't<br>>> accept anyone to call me an "ICANN agent", and in<br>>> fact I find this unfair and quite rude.
<br>>> Now, if you look at<br>>> <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IGF-themes.pdf">http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IGF-themes.pdf</a><br>>> you will find out that CS (in the field of
<br>>> critical Internet resources and public policy<br>>> issues, related to IG) according to the IGP<br>>> are... the IGP itself and ALAC? Is this CS in a [very] narrow sense?<br>>><br>>> There are people from different organizations,
<br>>> but they are staff, and they may have the right<br>>> to represent them. See Theresa (ICANN), Matthew<br>>> (ISOC), Patrik (IETF/IAB) - who, btw, is going to<br>>> be on the ISOC Board from July 1st, and others
<br>>> representatives of the relevant international organizations.<br>>> But you seem to have missed something very<br>>> important. See<br>>> <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/ISOC%20Bulgaria.rtf">
http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/ISOC%20Bulgaria.rtf</a><br>>> . We suggested it, and the Secretariat obviously<br>>> have listened to our recommendation.<br>>> The WSIS Para 62+ were clear, that
<br>>> "representatives of the relevant organizations" -<br>>> ICANN, ISOC, ITU, UNESCO should be invited. Or at<br>>> least this is how we read the document.<br>>> The fact that the AG also has people who are from
<br>>> other organizations - e.g. the Internet<br>>> Governance Project of Milton & partners, shows<br>>> that he does not really have ground for<br>>> complaints. Thinking about it, Milton's project
<br>>> got 1 out of 6 people<br>>> (<a href="http://internetgovernance.org/people.html">http://internetgovernance.org/people.html</a>),<br>>> that's a good ratio. That's better than ISOC,<br>>> where there are more than 6 people staff, and
<br>>> 20,000+ members worldwide, but they have only 1 (Matthew) representative.<br>>><br>>><br>>>> While there is seemingly "consensus" not to discuss ICANN related issues<br>>>> here at IGF, but rather in the closed "enhanced cooperation" process,
<br>>>> then why so many ICANN related folks are here?<br>>>> This is quite strange to me. Any explanation?<br>>> Again - everyone is ICANN-related here. What<br>>> about Adam Peak? Isn't he now on the NomCom? :)
<br>>><br>>>> Where are the spam, security, multilingual experts?<br>>> Check out<br>>> <a href="http://www.cybersecuritycooperation.org/parvanov.html">http://www.cybersecuritycooperation.org/parvanov.html
</a><br>>> (search for "Internet Society" on that page). Or<br>>> check <a href="http://veni.com/currentwork.html">http://veni.com/currentwork.html</a>.<br>>><br>>>> I mean, from the CS: privacy, human right, free speech experts.
<br>>> check out <a href="http://www.isoc.bg/kpd/">www.isoc.bg/kpd/</a><br>>><br>>><br>>>> I think the Civil society memebrs there in Geneva should<br>>>> express our initial serious concerns about the composition
<br>>>> and the direction of the MAG.<br>>> We could do that, but let's not forget something<br>>> else - CS got 5 out of 15 people suggested.<br>>> that's 1 out of every 3. Not bad. And let's not
<br>>> forget that some of the suggested people were<br>>> actually involved in the WSIS, WGIG, etc. Which<br>>> means they can continue to contribute in one or<br>>> another capacity. Or am I wrong?
<br>>><br>>> best,<br>>> Veni<br>>><br>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">
governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>>> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>>><br>
>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>>> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>>><br>><br>><br>> *******************************************************
<br>> William J. Drake <a href="mailto:drake@hei.unige.ch">drake@hei.unige.ch</a><br>> Director, Project on the Information<br>> Revolution and Global Governance<br>> Graduate Institute for International Studies
<br>> Geneva, Switzerland<br>> President, Computer Professionals for<br>> Social Responsibility<br>> <a href="http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake">http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake</a><br>> *******************************************************
<br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Plenary mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:Plenary@wsis-cs.org">Plenary@wsis-cs.org</a><br>> <a href="http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary">
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary</a><br>><br>><br><br>--<br><br>Carlos A. Afonso<br>diretor de planejamento<br>Rits -- <a href="http://www.rits.org.br">http://www.rits.org.br</a><br><br>********************************************
<br>* Projeto Sacix -- Pacote Linux orientado *<br>* a projetos de inclusão digital com *<br>* software livre e de código aberto, *<br>* mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o *<br>* Coletivo Digital. *
<br>* Saiba mais: <a href="http://www.sacix.org.br">http://www.sacix.org.br</a> *<br>********************************************<br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org
</a><br><br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Email from Adam Peake <
<a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp">ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a>> <br>Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling. Please reply to <<a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp">ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a>> Thanks!