[discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Apr 16 03:13:57 UTC 2014
On Monday 14 April 2014 10:58 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> Given the multiplicity of different stakeholders outside as well as within the ICANN stakeholder community, why would you limit such a committee so severely?
No, I have not limited anything. (And if you really dont want things to
be limited, lets go for a global elections. I am game.) I have followed
an established pattern in democratic systems -- there are these 10-12
basic categories in which public affairs are classified and run - but
this is of course elastic. But then it has a historic democratic basis -
which can hardly be said of suddenly deciding out of nowhere that
1. big business and technical community have the same voting rights as
civil society and governments - I ask, on what basis?
2. Big business is that which ICC says it is, and technical community is
that which ISOC says it is (that being a different matter how much
ISOC's management structure is dominated by big business - for the last
many years they have not been able to chose their CEO from outside the
US telecom industry, and that even after Snowden, but lets not get into
> (Other than alignment with your point of view....)
My contention is that the 4 way equal footing division of stakeholders
has been done for the purpose of aligning with a certain point of view -
the big business, which wants to run the world and is increasingly
impatient with its democratic political processes.. My proposal at least
has a long historical background in democratic tradition going back a
We are becoming party to neoliberalisation of everything - and here, its
biggest prize - the governance systems... But, well, peoples' movements
are building all over the world, and I bet it is not going to be an easy
ride for the kind of things that are being tried in global IG, later to
be introduced to national levels, and all socio-political affairs.
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 04:45 AM
> To: discuss at 1net.org <discuss at 1net.org>
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Dear ICANN - Feedback
> On Monday 14 April 2014 02:08 PM, parminder wrote:
>> 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...
>>> 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
>>> 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?
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> * * *
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
> confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
> error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
> e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
> use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
> person. Thank you for your cooperation.
> * * *
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
> inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
> and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
> party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
More information about the discuss