[fwd] about "[alac] WSIS Reloaded! --- Rechange!!" (from: ajp@glocom.ac.jp)

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Forwarded message from Adam Peake <ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx> -----

From: Adam Peake <ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: faia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: izumi@xxxxxxx, cctld-discuss@xxxxxxxxx, alac@xxxxxxxxx,
        council <council@xxxxxxxx>, roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:12:10 +0900
Subject: about "[alac] WSIS Reloaded! --- Rechange!!"
X-Spam-Level: 

Erick,

Some comments we sent on the WSIS documents attached (I doubt my 
email will get to many of the list addresses you sent to.)

3 sections, you should see the 2nd section on "The Internet's Unique 
Identifier Systems" for ICANN related comments.

WSIS is an unpleasant policy environment for name and addressing 
issues (<http://www.itu.int/wsis/>, see "intersessional meeting" for 
current situation.) We have no right of response, some governments 
seem to have quite aggressive agendas, there is a general 
misunderstanding of the technical realities (etc. etc.)

I am not sure how you can best respond to WSIS. You (ALAC) are not an 
accredited organization so they will probably not recognize any 
comment you make.  But you can (*must*) lobby your individual 
governments. And you could follow-up on Izumi's remarks in Montreal 
and try to pressure GAC to be a little more consistent. Those of you 
with business contacts might try to talk to the International Chamber 
of Commerce, the main representative of private sector interests in 
WSIS.

Going forward, I think the best approach is to explain why the 
comments from governments are mistaken, and then to focus on broader 
issues and principles of ICT governance, rather than the specifics of 
names and addressing.

There is also a civil society working group on ICT governance issues 
<https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance>, 
<mailto:governance-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=subscribe>

Thanks,

Adam

-- 



----- End forwarded message -----