Yes, just before ambiguities jump in. Fouad is a learner, not a farmer!
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Point well made, Fouad.
>
> --c.a.
>
> Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>>
>> Please Dearest Colleagues,
>>
>> I would like everyone to think on this in their space and time. A DC
>> cannot exist without all three stakeholder members of the
>> multistakeholder process i.e. the Govts, the Private sector and the CS
>> and since I am on MAG, my role is only facilitation of dialogue by all
>> the stakeholders or sharing the concerns for the stakeholder that I
>> represent (CS - IGC). The multistakeholders should explore, implore
>> and disucuss out this issue to come together and make that proposal
>> during IGF....right now it is just to stimulate the possibility and
>> see what the members of the multistakeholdership think?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fouad:
>>> OF COURSE the apologists for ICANN on the MAG are against this idea. We
>>> have been having this discussion for years. They would prefer to either keep
>>> the US oversight in place (because they are well-positioned in Washington to
>>> ensure that ICANN stays focused on their agenda, usually trademark/IPR) or
>>> they want to insulate ICANN from broader forms of accountability (or both).
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
>>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:30 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability
>>>> and
>>>> International Conformity - IAIC at IGF?
>>>>
>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>
>>>> There is resistance within the MAG, especially most of the notions
>>>> against this are coming from MAG members that are already very active
>>>> inside ICANN Board and belong to the corporate sector, even the one
>>>> from my region whom I thought was the representative of the Civil
>>>> Society from my region and serves on GNSO....so it is true that the
>>>> private sector participating on key roles in ICANN has responded very
>>>> negative....can members join the Internet Governance Caucus to the IGF
>>>> and join this thread:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ and as you can read from here how to join us:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/membership
>>>>
>>>> If you can gather some more support, I as a MAG member can only help
>>>> initially to facilitate the process but you dear friends are in a
>>>> position to bridge the creation of such a dynamic coalition and
>>>> linking ICANN as you all participate..........I can confirm you that
>>>> with my discussions with the EU participants at the www.eurodig.org
>>>> felt this is the right way to go but the people with private sector
>>>> and commercial roles do not want to to go ahead with this.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks a very positive step in my view. I'd like to see a DC
>>>>
>>>> focused on
>>>>>
>>>>> ICANN accountability this take hold. I suspect there will be some
>>>>
>>>> internal
>>>>>
>>>>> and external resistance (which might be a sign it is worth doing!).
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 15, 2009, at 6:24 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Members,
>>>>> As per the proceedings of the EuroDIG.org plenary no 3 on The Post-JPA
>>>>> Phase: towards a future Internet Governance Model, there has been
>>>>> discussion amongst the European Governments and participants about the
>>>>> role of ICANN and more accountability of it in terms of Internet
>>>>> Governance Forum. There has a need been identified for creation of a
>>>>> "Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International
>>>>> Conformity - IAIC" (though proposed in its structure here more
>>>>> sensibly) at the IGF in order to deal with the ICANN related issues
>>>>> more strategically, tactically with a multistakeholder participation
>>>>> within the light of the Tunis Agenda or if not within this context but
>>>>> then realizing that although ICANNs constitutional documents and
>>>>> by-laws require it to co-operate with relevant international
>>>>> organisations and to carry out its activities in conformity with
>>>>> relevant principles of international law and applicable international
>>>>> conventions and local law, there are no related formal accountability
>>>>> arrangements and this can be the first step to create this process.
>>>>> IGF process needs to be kept separate but interconnected with ICANN
>>>>> (though this comment is still very vague).
>>>>> Your suggestions on this proposal would be really useful and I am
>>>>> circulating this to other IG related lists for input and
>>>>> participation.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>> Fouad Bajwa
>>>>> @skBajwa
>>>>> Answering all your technology questions
>>>>> http://www.askbajwa.com
>>>>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IP JUSTICE
>>>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
>>>>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
>>>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards.
>>>> --------------------------
>>>> Fouad Bajwa
>>>> @skBajwa
>>>> Answering all your technology questions
>>>> http://www.askbajwa.com
>>>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
Answering all your technology questions
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
|
