Re: [alac] WSIS agenda

[Erick Iriarte Ahon <faia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi to alla

The Peruvian statement in the WSIS is in this way:

"En torno a la Gobernanza de Internet, los 
acuerdos a los que se arribo, nos abren un nuevo 
mundo. Un mundo donde esta claro que el Internet 
como insumo para el desarrollo ha sobrepasado las 
fronteras nacionales, y que las soluciones para 
los debates sobre Internet, estan en el 
desarrollo de políticas y regulaciones 
armonizadas globalmente. Se abre un mundo para el 
ICANN, que tiene en esta oportunidad un tiempo 
para acercarse a los realmente afectados por los 
temas de Internet en su parte técnica, es decir 
todos los stakeholders. Sobre el ICANN no tenemos 
duda de la transparencia, los espacios 
democráticos y que sea multi-stakeholder, pero 
deberá trabajar mas con la comunicación de sus 
decisiones, en los mecanismos de consulta y de 
participación real y efectiva, así como 
el  trabajo de acuerdo con los Estados. Se abre 
un mundo para la sociedad civil no tecnológica, 
es decir aquellos que no siendo del área 
tecnológica sin embargo tienen relevancia en 
temas de Internet Governance, puesto que su voz 
también es necesaria. Y finalmente se abre una 
oportunidad para todos los actores involucrados, 
puesto que han demostrado que el desarrollo de 
políticas globales, regionales y nacionales, se 
tiene que desarrollar desde una perspectiva 
inclusiva, incluyente, democrática, transparente 
y multi-stakeholder, y que su voz no solo tiene 
que ser escuchada sino atendida.."

Erick


At 11:17 a.m. 18/11/2005, Bret Fausett wrote:
> > The easy part is calling ICANN a failure.  The 
> > hard part (and the part you signed-up for as an 
> > ALAC member) is articulating, and getting 
> > community buy-in, for what a successful (or 
> > "competent") ICANN looks like/does (especially 
> > from a Net user perspective) and suggesting 
> > specific actions that At-Large and ICANN should take.
>
>
> The list of specific actions for ICANN to take 
> is a long one. But -- and I'm probably 
> channeling Wendy here -- the actions that ICANN 
> will actually take has no overlap with the list 
> of actions that we would advocate. It's been 
> refreshing to see Avri on the GNSO Council, as 
> she is asking questions and advocating changes 
> that I long ago abandoned as hopeless causes. 
> Among the "hopeless cause" specific actions we 
> might resurrect and advocate are:
>
> 1.   Hiring a "Manager of Public Participation" 
> (see the ALAC Statement in Mar del Plata). This 
> was a key staff position proposed by the ICANN 
> Reform effort in 2002, which current ICANN 
> management has never seen fit to fill. While 
> ICANN seems to have no problem hiring water boys 
> for senior staff -- you know, the 'Executive 
> Assistants' and 'Vice-Policy Managers' and 
> 'Associate Counsels' --  it can't bother to hire 
> someone who actually would represent the 
> interests of end-users. I'm not talking here 
> about the advertised position of 'Vice-President 
> for Outreach,' who will work under the direction 
> of the 'General Manager for Global 
> Partnerships,' but someone who will ensure that 
> user input into ICANN doesn't end up unheard.
>
> 2.   Increased Transparency for ICANN Staff. 
> ICANN has never truly embraced "openness and 
> transparency," in spite of the fact that these 
> requirements are laced through its bylaws. In 
> 1998, when ICANN was just beginning, someone 
> proposed a truly brilliant idea, with an analog 
> in U.S. administrative processes. To increase 
> transparency, ICANN would require that any ICANN 
> community member who had (a) an ex parte contact 
> (defined as any contact that was not in an open, 
> public forum) with (b) an ICANN Board member or 
> ICANN staffer about (c) a matter of policy (as 
> opposed to social contacts or administrative 
> minutiae) to (d) summarize the meeting, 
> including date, time, length, persons attending, 
> and subjects discussed, and post it to a public 
> web archive within 5 business days after the 
> meeting. If the summary was inaccurate, ICANN 
> could post a response. Imagine all of the 
> problems that ICANN could have avoided over the 
> years if people actually knew what was happening down in Marina del Rey.
>
> 3.   Increased Transparency for the ICANN Board. 
> The ICANN Board now meets roughly 80% of the 
> time in private, closed, secret session. In the 
> early days of ICANN, the balance was the 
> opposite. I also understand that the infamous 
> "Board list" -- the Board's working mailing list 
> -- has over 4000 messages a year, none of them 
> publicly readable or archived. Imagine all of 
> the problems that ICANN could have avoided over 
> the years if people actually knew what was 
> happening in the Board's discussions.
>
> The easy part is calling these specific 
> suggestions about process "navel-gazing" 
> (Esther's term, once upon a time). They have 
> important ramifications for policy though. 
> Here's an example: The 2001 .COM Agreement 
> states that Verisign must propose a renewal of 
> the .COM agreement at some time between November 
> 10, 2005 and May 10, 2006. ICANN then will have 
> six months to review the proposal and decide 
> whether to accept it. (see our ICANN Wiki page 
> for the links to the actual provisions.) That's 
> what the public documents say. What really 
> happened was that Verisign and/or ICANN proposed 
> a renewal of .COM out of sync with the public, 
> contractual provisions, at least ten months 
> before the process was to start. If that weren't 
> bad enough, ICANN then asked the community to 
> comment on the "deal" in a matter of days, 
> rather than in the "six month" consideration 
> window required by the current contract. When 
> the greater community doesn't see something like 
> .COM renegotiation coming ("no transparency"), 
> it impacts our ability to comment upon and influence the outcome.
>
>                 Bret