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