[ALAC] Urgent: proposed email to GAC/ Board Chairs

Fouad Bajwa fouadbajwa at gmail.com
Thu Jan 13 00:36:29 UTC 2011


Hi Olivier,

You should just have asked me about the location ;o) They are all
getting together in Geneva. Now isn't that peculiar but it isn't
especially when all of them will be there for the IGF Open
Consultations and MAG meeting......and yes, its a closed space and non
one else from the community is invited............very accurate indeed
Olivier...

...and just in case anyone may has noticed it or not, if you go to the
sponsorship page of the ICANN meeting page at
http://meetings.icann.org/sponsorship , ICANN has increased the
sponsorship costs by factors of 2.5 to 10, so much about
"multi-stakeholder" and bottom-up stuff. Top sponsorship per ICANN
meeting is half a million dollars and the minimum sponsorship to have
a stand was increased to USD 25K from USD 10K. This excludes alot of
stakaeholders and people that may want to also set-up stall and raise
awareness about their groups.

This creates a feeling of shaking trust (anti-trust) in ICANN
practices and motivations. On the other hand within Internet
Governance Has ICANN been scared down with what is happening within
the IGF with regards to the intergovernmental control of the forum and
pushing ICANN behind as one of the members of the multistakeholdership
that no one listened to during the open consultations or is this
bending to the pressure being built inside?

The pressure on ICANN is not only being built from inside only, its
flowing from the IGF and ITU as well.

Would governments and ICANN control or technically coordinate an
Internet that had no more users because they scared them off with the
threat of arrests, violation of their rights, failing protection,
abuse of powers etc??? I know it sounds like a fairy tale but just
think for a moment, is the Internet a space for innovation and human
socio-economic growth or is it a means to control? Which side are
these guys on now?

Okay back to the general thing................I could have gained more
insight in to this from the IGF community but I am not getting
supported to go to the Geneva meetings either for the IGF or
so...............

No objection from me as well but now you have the confirmed location.
Why, because IGF activities and ICANN - GAC interaction are going to
happen around the same space.....and by the way, how did everyone
forget ITU and GAC?

Best

Fouad

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> Dear ALAC members,
>
> you might be aware that there is currently much internal debate going on
> within GAC and the Board, and elsewhere, about the organisation of the
> summit which will bring GAC and the Board together. A significant tug of
> war appears to be taking place between partisans of the open meeting
> model and those of the closed meeting model. Another area of unknown
> unknown is where and when this meeting is due to take place.
>
> Please find enclosed below, a letter which I propose emailing to the
> Chair of the GAC and the Chair of the ICANN Board. Again, time is of the
> essence, so please read this:
> ** I shall be sending this in 24H if there is no objection from the ALAC **
>
> The aim is to catalyse the finding of a solution by suggesting one
> that's agreeable to everyone and avoid a situation where the results of
> such a meeting hold no legitimacy due to a flawed process.
>
> I look forward to your feedback.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Olivier
>
> --- body of the letter ---
>
> The following is a suggestion which I make in an individual capacity,
> after having listened to the argument of many people involved in and out
> of the decision process.  [ this will be replaced by: "which is made
> with agreement of ALAC" ]
>
> Proposed meeting Date: Mid-February
> Rationale: there are concerns that a meeting taking place at the end of
> the month will not give enough time for the Board to take notice,
> discuss and act on the points raised in the meeting, in time for the SFO
> meeting. Similarly, the GAC members would not have enough time to report
> to their governments and their stakeholders.
> As a result, there would be a real threat that the meetings in SFO would
> not contribute positively to the possibility of pressing the "go" button
> in SFO. More delays. More unhappy constituencies.
>
> Proposed meeting type: a mix of open & closed
> Rationale: both closed and open models have their advantages &
> inconvenients.
> Proponents of the closed model argue that there are several points of
> internal GAC & Board relationship building which might not benefit from
> being public - and could stop from GAC or Board members from being free
> to say what they wish to say during the meeting. This argument certainly
> has its validity.
> Proponents of an open meeting argue that ICANN, a champion of the open
> model of transparency, cannot politically have a closed meeting between
> the GAC and the Board. In the light of the uproar released by civil
> society triggered by the recent CSTD decisions regarding IGF-related
> governance, it is a simple case of eating one's own dog food.
> Opponents of the open model argue that if the meeting is going to be
> turned into a "circus" with people after people coming onto the
> microphone and giving mixed signals, this would be a waste of time.
>
> I therefore propose:
> - that the meeting, likely to last 2 days to be thorough, should be
> composed of a mix of closed and open meetings, with an emphasis that the
> closed meeting time shall constitute less than 40% of the total time
> allocated for meetings.
> - that it shall be possible to follow the open meeting remotely, through
> an Adobe Connect room, Internet streaming and a telephone bridge, to a
> standard no lower than the standard proposed at an ICANN Annual General
> Meeting (AGM).
> - that the Chair and Vice Chairs of SOs and ACs, plus a select number of
> people in the GNSO (number to be determined but akin to a selection of
> people taking part in Cross Community Working Groups (CWGs)) shall be
> invited to make comments and take part in the discussion in *some* of
> the open sessions. They shall be called "Community Representatives (CR)".
> - that the Chair and/or Vice Chairs of SOs and ACs might, at a common
> GAC-Board invitation, appear or make statements for a part of the closed
> meetings, provided there is consensus between GAC and Board on their
> presence.
> - that the rest of the people following the meeting shall have observer
> status but shall have full freedom to be in touch at all times with
> their Community Representatives and shall therefore be able to speak
> through them.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> --- cut here ---
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
>



More information about the ALAC mailing list