[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Membership] [Fwd: [IFWP] Re: Internet Governance?!]
I felt that forwarding this to the MAC list was important as it brings
to the fore a need to have a membership organization in place ASAP
so as to keep this ICANN Interim board accountable. To date,
given the actions of the ICANN Interim Board, most especially
those unilateral actions taken in secret by the ICANN Interim
Board, in stark contrast to what a large majority of the Stakeholders
(you and others) wanted. This point up the problems with the
PROCESS that seems terribly flawed due to a lack of a
membership organization in place and the bylaws of the ICANN
itself.... Comments? Make your voice known!!!
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
---- Begin included message ----
---- End included message ----
>For the most part, I agree with Tamar:
> "The Internet also must have a structure. The structure
> requires some governance--central authority to establish
> the rules of the game. The important decision is where to
> draw the line, and avoid standards that are not necessary
> for the creation of successful markets. Same issue is true
> of ICANN." (I would have also included "process" as a
> critically important decision.)
>In other words, I'm not opposed to some *limited*
>global standards, if they are necessary, and if they
>are set through some fair and defined process :-)
Ditto. Unfortunately, the global standards are being pressed on us from
all sides, and they are NOT being set through fair and defined process.
Take, for example, the WIPO proceedings. It was clear in several of the
open meetings that there was significant objection from many sides,
including ACM (one of the world's largest technical organizations), the
Asia/Pacific community, and disperate public policy organizations. I have
not seen any of these objections incorporated into WIPO recommendations.
Another example is the formation of the trademark constituency. INTA's
newsletter this month speaks of the formation of the constituency being
"voice for the IP community." This is an expansion of the original plans
for examining cybersquatting. Further, the meetings for the formation of
the constituency were reported even to INTA's membership, AFTER the fact
(except for the Berlin meeting, which is mentioned in passing with no
information given and no information listed in INTA's calendar of events at
the end of their newsletter).
There needs to be encouragement for all stakeholders interested in these
issues to be heard AND listened to. The input being provided (when we are
given notice of meetings, etc.) is the result of many years of technical
and policy expertise on all sides of these issues. Constituencies need to
be inclusive rather than exclusive. Individuals AND organizations need to
have voices and votes. If ICANN is going to be a coherrent and harmonious
structure, there has to be more enfranchisement of dissenting opinions,
true incorporation of those opinions into the mix, and much LESS emphasis
on global standards and MORE emphasis on what has made the Internet the
great vehicle for speech and commerce that it now is. Hint: it wasn't
built on global standards in any sense except the technical, and even there
we had a few fun times (like x.400).