[discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Apr 14 14:41:13 UTC 2014 

On Monday 14 April 2014 04:05 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> 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.

Ian

I must quote my email of a few hour ago, but sent before you sent this email

"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."

Who decided that there are 4 stakeholder groups who have stakes in 
deciding the nature of public oversight over critical Internet 
resources, or just the DNS.... Who made their stakes equal - lie big 
business having the same level as the whole of civil society - with so 
many varied interests and forms...

And thirdly, as one knows would happen. how is ICC put as the gatekeeper 
of business stakeholders and ISOC of technical community..... I meet so 
many technical people here in India, very few would see themselves 
aligned to the political positions I see ISOC take .

When were these questions last examined..... In a democracy, they will 
be a daily talk...

Making the group you suggest would be more or less a fixed match, 
numerous of which kind we have been seeing lately in this area of IG... 
Lets make some bold departures - towards democratic systems, and let 
people decide issues of importance to them. .

parminder
>
>
>
> Ian
>
> -----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
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

More information about the discuss mailing list