I choose not to personalize. Change by individuals handpicked by ICANN staff? Who voted them in? On Thursday, October 17, 2013, McTim wrote:
Alex,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Alex Gakuru <gakuru@gmail.com<javascript:;>> wrote:
Its interesting and frustrating as well. ICANN system architects design it to choke global public interest while fronting an "open participation" façade. when in reality it is controlled by an over represented bunch of Intellectual Property private interests
Can you name one person on any of these panels that represents IP interests?
and their handsomely rewarded
'activists'.
Let's face it, infuriates to see some Africans pipers "participating" motivated by promises of air tickets and some travel allowances thus go there to sing a pre-set tune chorus tune -- praising whomever calls the tune and pays the piper.
I thought they were there to actually change the tune!
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Thoroughly associate myself with Prof. Milton Mueller on below.
regards,
Alex
--------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Date: Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fadi's strategy panels To: Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: "ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" <ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org>
Ignore them, and they will go away.
These panels not only have no legitimacy, there is really no clear explanation for why we need them and what they will do that meets a need defined by CANN's actual constituencies and communities.
The idea that a group of 6 people led by someone who has never spent a minute in ICANN's process or in the formulation or analysis of DNS
policy is
going to make major reforms in process strikes me as especially ridiculous.
--MM
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> wrote:
This is an interesting debate Gakuru, especially now that Brazil announced plans to build their own internet after the Snowden affair. ICANN through Fadi saw it fit to have a high level Internet Governance meeting with the representatives of BRICS to allay fears over the US-centric internet and demonstrate that they are dedicated to the Multistakeholder approach. The civil society more prominently IGC are ensuring that they are well represented and that they also get to set the agenda of that meeting. But it has been noted that since President Rousseff will be running for re-election just about that time, she might not be upto the task.
It will be interesting to see how things will shape up.
On 16/10/2013, Alex Gakuru <gakuru@gmail.com> wrote:
Read alongside:A blueprint for the future oversight of ICANN ... We respectfully suggest that the Rio meeting must *not* be organized
as
a parade of ”leaders” on a podium purporting to speak for the public. Let the meeting be open to anyone and everyone with a serious stake in the accountability of ICANN and its relationship to the U.S. and other governments. Let it have an open process for submitting, deliberating upon and expressing support for or opposition to specific proposals. Let us also not forget that ICANN and its oversight are the main topic of the meeting, which suggests that ICANN’s staff should not be playing a major role in setting the agenda for the meeting; ICANN has a bit of a conflict of interest in that regard. We must not allow ICANN to use its escape from the USG to escape all accountability. Ideas should be solicited widely, not from an assemblage of leaders hand-picked by the institution being governed. Let any dialogue on transition emerge openly from civil society, industry and governments and let them determine their own representation in the Rio event. That is the essence of “bottom up, multistakeholder” governance. ..
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-over...
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> wrote: