why?

in kuala lumpur you (Milton) talked with about about the necessity to work
more close with ALAC, in special in WSIS issues.

I don't understand your position (and i understand is only your position),
because another members from the constituency think (at least Adam and me)
think is a good space to work together.

Please more than your personal position could you explain me why don't want
to participate with the another constituencies (NCUC is inside ICANN not
outside) in this team?

Erick Iriarte Ahon
Alfa-Redi


At 10:52 a.m. 06/08/2004, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >>> Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]> 8/6/2004 11:09:42 AM >>>
> >All very well that members and/or the constituency might have a
> >position on WSIS (I haven't seen any discussion of our position),
> >what bothers me is that no one from the constituency is participating
> >in this "WSIS Workshop Planning Group".  All the business
> >constituencies and ALAC are there, and no NCUC.  This isn't good.
>
><laughing> I think it's just fine that we are not on this group.
>It is by choice.
>
>Reason: this is an ICANN management "show" designed to present a
>unified front to the WSIS process. The program is dominated by ICANN
>management and the Axis constituencies regardless of whether we
>participate or not. Notice, for example, that both shows gave Marilyn
>Cade
>the opportunity for a closing benediction, a privilege I don't think
>they would
>confer upon me or any other NCUC rep.
>
>So why waste scarce time on it?
>
>I participated in the first one at Rome on behalf of NCUC. My comments
>
>were sent to the list, and here they are:
>
>==========================================
>"I am Dr. Milton Mueller, Chair of the Noncommercial Users
>Constituency.
>[we were asked to introduce ourselves]
>
>NCUC sees WSIS as a way of mobilizing additional civil society
>participants in
>international communication and information policy issues. We favor
>this.
>
>In regards to ability of CSOs to participate in policy making
>processes, ICANN
>compares favorably to the UN Summit and to most international
>organizations.
>We appreciate this, and we publicize it.
>
>NCUC welcomes the creation of the UN Working Group on Internet
>governance,
>for two reasons:
>1. It increases the accountability of ICANN
>2. It is necessary to broaden discussion of IG issues
>
>1. ICANN will figure prominently in the UN WG discussions. It is a way
>of
>integrating ICANN-IG into the broader international system.
>Specifically, the
>(real or apparent) role of US interests and USG in ICANN is a point of
>contention,
>and it was inevitable that UN system and governments would take this
>on. WG
>will have a dialogue about that. There is real potential to do good.
>
>2. IG debate is not so "confused." What's confused is the patchwork
>quilt of
>governance arrangements that exist now. We have stated since the
>beginning
>that ICANN makes public policy regarding specific aspects of the
>Internet. So
>do a number of other international organizations. The UN WG on IG can
>develop
>consensus on basic principles regarding what the Internet is and how it
>can be
>treated in an international regime. There is some potential for harm,
>some potential
>for good.
>
>NCUC members will be key participants in the WGIG process, both as
>constituency
>representatives and in their capacity as experts in various aspects of
>policy."
>===============================================
>
>Is there anything more to say?
>
> >Could the constituency's executive committee please appoint someone
> >to this planning group.
>
>If the EC votes to do this, and some poor victim has the spare time, we
>will appoint
>someone. I will advocate otherwise.
>
>--MM