NCUC and the ICANN "WSIS Workshop Planning Group"

[Milton Mueller]

>>> Adam Peake <ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP> 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