Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC at IGF?

[Carlos A. Afonso]

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 <mueller at syr.edu> 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-
>>> DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:30 AM
>>> To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> 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 <robin at ipjustice.org> 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: robin at ipjustice.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards.
>>> --------------------------
>>> Fouad Bajwa
>>> @skBajwa
>>> Answering all your technology questions
>>> http://www.askbajwa.com
>>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
>
>
>