[NCUC] Nomination of Wilson Abigaba for Executive Committee from Africa

[Wilson Abigaba]

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for the nomination and seconding my name. I gladly accept
and will duly serve if elected.

I will submit my written candidate statement this week.

Kind Regards,
Wilson

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:
> If I may add a +1, I was fortunate to chat to Wilson during the Toronto
> meeting and am really impressed by his willingness to put his shoulder to
> the wheel on both policy and practical communications topics.
>
> Maria
>
>
> On 20 October 2012 14:01, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ALl,
>>
>> I know Wilson from my time in UG and would be pleased to second this
>> nomination!
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Over the last year I have had the opportunity to work with Wilson
>> > Abigaba on the Whois Survey group.  I was very impressed by his dedication
>> > to the effort despite the late hours of the calls and other difficulties.
>> > He took on responsibility for tough tasks in creating the survey and came
>> > through with all of them.  The NCUC is evolving into a working committee
>> > that needs to be the group that gives the NCUC proper visibility and
>> > viability and helps the chair in keeping the constituency organized.
>> >
>> > The NCUC would be greatly benefited by a volunteer with Wilson's work
>> > ethic as part of our executive committee.
>> >
>> > I nominate him for NCUC EC representative from Africa.
>> >
>> > Avri Doria
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
>
>From From:         =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?= Tue Oct 23 13:03:23 EEST 2012
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Date:         Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:03:23 +0200
Reply-To:     =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=
              <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at MEDIENKOMM.UNI-HALLE.DE>
Sender:       NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
From:         =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=
              <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at MEDIENKOMM.UNI-HALLE.DE>
Subject:      GAC Toronto Communique
X-To:         Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD4E7 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi all
=20
indeed, after reading the GAC Communique I notice a strong shift in its =
tone. What we had so far only in the oral presentations of some GAC =
members we have now in the written (agreed) GAC Communique: The GAC =
reserves its right to have the last word, at least with regard to issues =
of "public interest". But what is not "public interest" in the ICANN =
context?  This will raise further question about the relationship =
between the GAC and the Board and GAC=B4s understanding of the =
multistakeholder model with an open and transparent bottom up PDP.=20
=20
Here are some more detailed observations:=20
=20
1. The subject of the High Level GAC meeting was "Preserving and =
Improving the Multistakeholder Model". Very good subject. However there =
are no conclusions or recommendations which came out of the meeting. =
What is GAC=B4s understanding of "improving" the Multistakeholder Model? =
Do we have here a similar debate as we had in the UN under "improving =
the IGF"? For some GAC members "improving" means obviously to move =
decision making power from the Board to the GAC. This seems in my eyes =
problematic and would undermine the understanding of the =
multistakeholder model. Remember the WGIG definition where it is said, =
that Internet Governance includes "shared ... decision making =
procedures". The GAC has not delivered a model how decision making on =
issues related to public policies can be "shared" with other =
non-governmental constituencies within the ICANN context. It is still a =
battle for "the right to have the last word", the single decision making =
power. And this will continue. All sides have still to find "their =
respective role" (another quotation for the WGIG definition, adopted by =
180+ member states of the United Nations in 2005).=20
=20
2. It is good that the GAC is obviously considerung to jump into ICANNs =
open and transparent bottom up policy development process at an early =
stage (GAC Early Engagement / GACEE). However it remains unclear how =
this will be managed procedurely. Will there be a GAC liaison in all =
drafting teams? And what is the status of such a liaison? Just as an =
observer, reporting back to the GAC? Or as an active member who can =
speak on behalf of the 120+ GACies? Will the OK of the GAC liaison be =
needed to reach "rough consensus" in a drafting team (which would give =
the GAC a "veto right" for everything)? A good field for reaching =
progress by stumbling forward.     =20

3. It is good that the GAC invites its members to handle "early warning" =
against individual gTLD applications on the basis of a "collaborative =
and cooperative approach". It remains to be seen how many cases can be =
settled via such an approach and how many cases will remain on the table =
and will lead to a "GAC advice". It sounds rather strong if the GAC =
advices the Board "that it is necessary for all these statements of =
commitment and objectives to be transformed into binding contractual =
commitments, subject to compliance oversight by ICANN". Remains to bee =
seen how this will be handeld in detail if it comes to cases where both =
sides have good arguments and the USR will not be able to help.
=20
4. It is good that the GAC is looking towards the production of a list =
for names of IGOs which should get special protection in the new gTLD =
program both under the 1st and the 2nd level. To use the criteriea for =
the .int TLD is okay. It is as it was in the early days of the DNS when =
Jon Postel argued that he is not in a position to decide what a country =
is and he refered to an existing list (ISO 3166) before handing out =
delegations to the management of ccTLDs.. To use existing lists is a =
workable and useful methodology as long there is broad agreement that =
the proposed list is the right one. Nevertheless the GAC communique does =
not include International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) in its =
Communique. Has this any meaning? The GNSO Council proposed to include =
both IGOs and INGOs in the planned PDP.
=20
5. IOC and Red Cross: Here comes a big controversy. The GAC  is seeking =
"clarification from the GNSO as to its rationale for initiating a PDP" =
and it adds that its advice does not need a PDP but just implementation. =
 This is controversial indeed. There is no external legal study which =
proofs the position that the status of those two organisations is unique =
under existing national and international law. There are a number of =
groups who are arguing that there are also other non-governmental =
organisation which have a similar legal status like the Red Cross and =
the IOC and would also fall under such a categorization. Insofar the =
GNSO was very wise to argue, that before doing any policy decision it =
would be better to have a final legal clarification. Based on such a =
legal clarification a coherent policy should be developed which would =
give the two mentioned organisations and others the needed protection to =
avoid any misuse which would be contrary to the public interests. For =
many observers a simple "GAC advice" does not constitute such a needed =
legal clarification. More work needs to be done. Additionally this =
produces an intersting case for how an open and transparent bottom up =
PDP within ICANNs multistakeholder model is executed in a triangular =
relationship between the GAC, the ICANN Board and the GNSO Council with =
its eight (commercial and non-commercial) constituencies organized in a =
contracted and non-contracted house. We all will learn how this will be =
played out.=20
=20
6. Another surprise in the GAC Communique is an ommssion. There is no =
reference to the RAAs and the Whois debate. The Toronto meeting made =
clear that there is a growing controversy about the understanding of =
privacy and data protection in the DNS and the Whois among various ICANN =
constituencies, including the GAC. For individual GAC members it means =
that they have to consult at home both with national state agencies for =
law enforcement and the data protection commissioner before coming to a =
GAC meeting and representing the "country=B4s position". A lot of =
observers have the impression that such a "national dialogue" on equal =
footing among law enforcement and data protection is still in its early =
stage in many countries and the actual debate is dominated the the =
legtimate requests from law enforcement agencies. However, also the =
requests from data protection officers are very justified according to =
the relevant national law. ICANNs Articles of Incorporation states that =
ICANN will operate within the framework of internaional law and national =
legislation,. If the Article 29 Working Party of the EU argues that =
proposed changes in the RAA are "unlawful" under existing European law, =
than ICANN has a problem. It is certainly correct that the Article 29 =
Working Party is an advisory body and not the EU Council of Ministers, =
but the facts laid out in the letter of the Article 29 Working Party are =
consitent with existing European law and decisions made by the EU =
Council of Ministers. So what to do? To introduce a differentiated =
system could lead to conflicts with rules for fair competition among =
registrars. A complicated constellation. GAC prefered to be silent for =
the moment. But the issue will not go away. And there is another =
question which is not yet discusses in this context: What about =
registrars serving ccTLDs who do not have a contract with ICANN?=20
=20
We live in interesting times and a lot have to be done :-)))
=20
Wolfgang
=20
=20