[discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback

Ian Peter ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Mon Apr 14 10:35:31 UTC 2014

my take - something like 12 -16 persons maximum, equal weighting to 
technical community, civil society, business and governmental interests. 
Completely  separate from but working in collaboration with the already 
announced technical community committee of 24.


-----Original Message----- 
From: Joseph Alhadeff
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 8:21 PM
To: parminder
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback

Apologies if I too narrowly construed your use of public interest, but this 
term is sometimes used to be a one-sided view of an issue that does not 
consider the broad uses and needs of the Internet... Jobs and economic 
growth resulting from business models are among some of the used of the 
Internet that also have societal benefits, but with a commercial slant... I 
would suppose that we are thus in agreement that a broad cross section of 
stakeholders in this committee would thus be appropriate... Can you please 
elaborate on how you would see the committee constituted?

Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 14, 2014, at 6:07 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> On Monday 14 April 2014 03:10 PM, Joseph Alhadeff wrote:
>> It would seem that such a committee should be made up of a broad cross 
>> section of stakeholders.  All groups have a stake in these discussions, 
>> not just self appointed representatives of the public interest.
> First of all no self appointed representative is a representative - it is 
> a contradiction in terms. It is for this reason that 'representativity' 
> has to be constantly interrogated - as is ingrained in the philosophy, 
> norms and practices of democracy. Whereas the MS- ist 
> (multistakeholderist) model is mostly rather unconcerned about such 
> things.
> As for stakeholder interests versus public interest, this is an 
> interesting debate. This binary is basic to the distinction between MSism 
> and democracy. I can discuss that if you have the time and inclination, 
> but will pass it for now. Just to say, public interest is everyone's 
> equitable interest and includes all groups - only the means of inclusion 
> and relative weight-age is based on much clearer and democratic terms than 
> it is in a self appointed MS system where a few groups declare themselves 
> as stakeholders and begin taking decision through mutual bargains among 
> themselves - decisions that implicate everyone, meaning the larger public.
>>  We keep on hearing the need for openness and transparency and then see 
>> the concepts applied only in favor of the proponent of a specific idea.
> Are you calling basing Internet governance on public interest just a 
> specific idea... If so, what are the other, counter, ideas?
> parminder
>> .. What is needed is an open, inclusive and transparent process with due 
>> recognition for those functions that require technical skills and the 
>> operational realities of the governance and oversight mechanisms with the 
>> objective of meeting the NTIA requirements.
>> Joe
>> Sent from my iPad
>>> On Apr 14, 2014, at 4:45 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Monday 14 April 2014 02:08 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>> SNIP
>>>> There is no meaning in proposing a committee without mentioning how 
>>>> should it be constituted... for instance a committee full of people 
>>>> from what is called as 'ICANN community' will no doubt give recs to 
>>>> keep the function within the ICANN with some fine tuning here and there 
>>>> of accountability mechanisms to the 'community'.
>>> Sorry, I now see that you propose such a committee to have wider 
>>> stakeholder representation.. ... I think it should be almost entirely 
>>> made of 'public interest' actors from beyond the ICANN community...
>>>> parminder
>>>>> Your statement below is a little confusing to me, but to be clear I am 
>>>>> only suggesting a committee to examine how the function evolves and 
>>>>> make recommendations. I am not suggesting a committee to perform the 
>>>>> "oversight" function.
>>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: George Sadowsky
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:26 AM
>>>>> To: Peter Ian
>>>>> Cc: ianatransition at icann.org ; discuss at 1net.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback
>>>>> Ian,
>>>>> I want to probe your response below somewhat further.
>>>>> At the moment, the IANA operational function that NTIA performs is, in 
>>>>> the case of any new delegation or redelegation of any entry in the 
>>>>> root zone file. NTIA checks to see that the appropriate policies have 
>>>>> been followed. If they have, IANA checks the box, and the change 
>>>>> occurs.
>>>>> Is this the function that you suggest should be delegated to a 
>>>>> separate committee involving wider representation from the wider 
>>>>> multistakeholder community involving a much wider range of 
>>>>> governmental, civil society and business interests?
>>>>> If not, could you please be precise in describing exactly which other 
>>>>> functions are to be replaced by this wider group?
>>>>> George
>>>>>> On Apr 13, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Dear ICANN,
>>>>>> You have asked for feedback on your proposal, so here is mine.
>>>>>> Firstly, I now think your Steering Committee is fine for most of your 
>>>>>> initial tasks. I originally did not, as it is narrowly constricted to 
>>>>>> the technical community rather than the wider multistakeholder 
>>>>>> community involved with internet governance issues. However, as I can 
>>>>>> see from the scattered discussions occurring here and on other lists, 
>>>>>> there seem to be quite a few people wanting to talk about the minutae 
>>>>>> of day to day operational matters, and your steering committee will 
>>>>>> serve to bring some focus and structure to those discussions. I would 
>>>>>> suggest your first task might be to examine which if any of the 
>>>>>> current functions, each of which seem to have been performed well for 
>>>>>> over a decade, might need to be re-examined.
>>>>>> But for most of us, these discussions are beyond our level of 
>>>>>> interest, and hence you will notice on this list and on others the 
>>>>>> number of people who have just stopped engaging.
>>>>>> However, there is one issue on which many of us to maintain some 
>>>>>> interest, and that is the oversight function which was the subject of 
>>>>>> the NTIA announcement. This has been described as simply clerical, 
>>>>>> some of us have seen it as largely symbolic, but whatever the reality 
>>>>>> is, this function has been the subject of contention for over a 
>>>>>> decade and will continue to be – not so much in the narrow steering 
>>>>>> committee of the technical groups, but in the wider multistakeholder 
>>>>>> community involving a much wider range of governmental, civil society 
>>>>>> and business interests.
>>>>>> Which is where my main suggestion lies. I think you need a separate 
>>>>>> committee to look at this particular issue, and one which involves 
>>>>>> representation from wider stakeholder groups not directly associated 
>>>>>> with the technical community – because, in the end, they will make or 
>>>>>> break any proposal for change here. I urge you to look at the 
>>>>>> appropriate way to engage this wider stakeholder group – as well, 
>>>>>> perhaps you could engage this wider and more representative group 
>>>>>> with involvement at eg the Internet Governance Forum, a notable 
>>>>>> absentee from your calendar of events.
>>>>>> One more suggestion and word of caution. There seems to be a 
>>>>>> prevailing thought that it doesn’t matter how long it takes to 
>>>>>> resolve this, and if it goes beyond September 2015 so be it. I 
>>>>>> disagree. If ICANN and associated bodies cannot come up with a 
>>>>>> structure for a simple governance function in 18 months – a task any 
>>>>>> government or corporation could do in less than three months – it 
>>>>>> will be widely perceived as being incapable and inefficient. People 
>>>>>> will lose patience and begin to look at other alternatives. So I do 
>>>>>> suggest that you add some firm timelines to your deliberations.
>>>>>> I hope this input is useful to you. I look forward to some more 
>>>>>> structured discussion in the future, and to a recognition that the 
>>>>>> sorts of matters largely being discussed here are in many cases not 
>>>>>> the matters that concern the wider community of interests beyond the 
>>>>>> technical community. You must structure your activities to engage 
>>>>>> those wider interests positively.
>>>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org

More information about the discuss mailing list