Re: [ga] WSIS workshop announcement
Richard and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,
Richard Henderson wrote:
> Paul Twomey, in his address to the Registrar constituency this afternoon,
> also expressed his concern about the case being made for a UN Agency to take
> over some of the functions of ICANN - he derided their lack of technical
> expertise, and insisted that management at a governmental level would be the
> wrong way for the Internet to proceed.
And I for one agree with Paul Towney in this particular instance. The
UN has trouble on deciding what color the chairs should be in their
conference rooms as has been reported not long ago.
>
>
> It has to be said - setting aside the cogent arguments for a market-driven
> approach to governance - that ICANN's position is substantially undermined
> (a) by the fact that it is primarily a US agency, answerable to DoC, giving
> the US a primacy which many other countries regard as unnatural in the
> context of a world resource; and (b) by the fact that ICANN is clearly
> underfunded, and policies like the evaluation and roll-out of New TLDs are
> being seriously delayed by lack of staffing and lack of resources.
Lack of funding has been a long term problem for ICANN. It remains
so due to it's own ability to garner broad based international as well
as US stakeholder/user support on many fronts and for many good
reasons. That history is well documented.
However as I recall ICANNATLAREGE.ORG can't seem to
come up with any funds from it's members what so ever.
>
>
> A UN-backed ITU governance would, at least, not be using staff and financial
> shortages as an excuse for holding up the development of the namespace.
Oh? Well I don't know if such a definitive statement is reasonable as such
is not been the UN's history in many instances in recent years such as
in Bosnia, and several areas in Africa (again recently reported again)
in providing adequate funds for food and health relief...
>
>
> The other factor which undermines ICANN's position is the perception of many
> that it is opaque in its management methods, unresponsive to criticism,
> autocratic at the centre, and fundamentally unaccountable to anyone except
> USG (who backs ICANN in its own wider interests).
Very true here Richard... But again this is old news and unfortunately
remains ongoing... Hence why stakeholders/users or their representatives
should express these sorts of concerns directly to DOC/NTIA...
>
>
> The governance of the Internet may be driven towards the UN / ITU by ICANN's
> own inept record and mismanagement. This would not be perceived as in the
> interests of USG, which should therefore be "setting its own house in order"
> before calls for a UN agency reach governmental level.
Two wrongs do not make a right here in this argument Richard...
>
>
> If USG provides the added funding which ICANN badly needs, then ICANN comes
> to be perceived more clearly as a state-funded quango working for a single
> national paylord. Alternatively, I've no doubt agencies within the US are
> already planning to use the cover of "security" to re-organise net
> governance, and organise ICANN (as we know it) out of the equation.
ICANN is a non-profit corp. based in California. The USG cannot
and should not provide any funding for ICANN in any fashion for
governmental ethical reasons.
> A
> genuine or an 'orchestrated' attack on the system would provide USG with the
> pretext it needs to break cover and lay claim to the control of the net.
>
> What we have at present is a bit of a 'Mickey Mouse' quango, operating from
> a few offices, underfunded, and not keeping up with its tasks... ITU or an
> equivalent version waits in the wings if ICANN cannot set things in order,
> and, alas, Paul Twomey's 'staffing re-organisations' will not be enough...
I doubt that regardless of how much funding ICANN had, it could
under it's current skewed and exclusive structure and poor narrow
minded management, adequately manage it technical tasks in
any expectable manner.
>
> what is needed is culture change and added funding and staff (I know some
> people will say, no, limit the mission to a narrow technical role - but I
> just think we're in a less simple more interactive world).
No I agree that this is to a great degree what is needed. However
where that funding comes from and a inclusive structure is also
needed.
>
>
> ...
>
> Richard Henderson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 6:12 PM
> Subject: [ga] WSIS workshop announcement
>
> > PATHS FOR THE FUTURE
> > An overview of discussions from the WSIS
> >
> > October 29th, 2003 (Wednesday)
> > 4:00pm - 6:00pm
> > Carthage Palace Hotel
> > Room Carthage 4
> >
> > During the preparatory meetings for the United Nations' World Summit on
> the
> > Information Society, some governments have started to call for more
> > traditional, inter-governmental ways to administer the Internet,
> especially
> > targeting on the international management of root servers, Domain Name
> > system, and IP Address assignment. They claim that while "technical
> matters"
> > can be managed by the private sector, ie ICANN, the "public policy issues"
> > should be handled by inter-governmental organizations, suggesting ITU.
> >
> > Is the principle of private-public partnership under discussion again?
> Can
> > it really match the challenges of the global Internet and resist to
> > pressures?
> >
> > The At Large Advisory Committee will organize an informational session
> about
> > what is happening in Geneva and what is going to happen after Geneva to
> > Tunisia in 2005. So ICANN is to persuade governments that they can handle
> > the public policy matters in open and transparent manner - but how?
> Perhaps
> > the At Large, through a more substantial role for the individual users
> than
> > the one in the current framework, could help to reach this objective.
> >
> > After a report about the discussions and controversies that have
> > characterized the last WSIS Preparatory meetings in July in Paris and
> > September in Geneva, panelists from different constituencies will discuss
> > what they think is right and what is wrong about the different Internet
> > governance models that are on the table, and how the gap between the
> > different views could be bridged.
> > --
> > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...
> >
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801