[At-Large] Fwd: [governance] EC recommends a "G12" for IG

[Franck Martin]

And what is wrong with the GAC? 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" <isolatedn at gmail.com> 
To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, 5 May, 2009 5:42:47 PM GMT +12:00 New Zealand 
Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [governance] EC recommends a "G12" for IG 

Hello 

To progress from G1 to G12 appears to be a good idea. Viviane Reding 
proposes G12 as "an informal group of government representatives that meets 
at least twice a year and can make, by majority, recommendations to ICANN 
where appropriate. To be geographically balanced, this "G-12 for Internet 
Governance" should include two representatives from each North 
America, South America, Europe and Africa, three representatives from 
Asia and Australia, as well as the Chairman of ICANN as a non-voting member. 
International Organisations with competences in this field could be given 
observer status. 

The idea is that "it is not defendable that the government department 
of only one country has oversight of an internet function which is used by 
hundreds of millions of people in countries all over the world". At the same 
time, the accountability of ICANN due to its "unique position of a global 
quasi-monopoly... requires global management... [as] monopolies always 
involve the risk of abuse. And who should ICANN be accountable to? Not the 
UN, because "decisions on internet governance need to be taken swiftly". 

So a G 12. 

The G12 for Internet Governance differs from a NATO or OPEC, as it is 
"informal" and "geographically balanced" with the inclusion of the ICANN 
chairman as a "non-voting" member with "observer" status granted to 
International Organizations. 

Good progress. But a move by Governments to take over the Internet? Why 
voting status to the Government 12 and observer status to the International 
Organizations? I would, in my independent opinion prefer an I 12 for 
Internet Governance with the twelve governments as Observers.... 


Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 
(individual views) 


On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote: 

> 9 minutes, well worth listening to what Viviane Reding has to say. 
> 
> Adam 
> 
> 
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org 
>> From: Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> 
>> Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 19:26:55 +0200 
>> 
>> Viviane Reding recommendation on IG: 
>> - A fully privatized and independent ICANN 
>> - Judicial review (complaints) "by a small, independent international 
>> tribunal" (instead of California court) 
>> - (Governmental) Oversight by a "G12" (geographically balanced) 
>> http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/index_en.htm 
>> 
>> So, progress on multilateral oversight. Business (and when I say business, 
>> I really mean the business sector) as usual on other issues. IG seems to be 
>> seen as a consumer issue only. 
>> 
>> Enjoy! 
>> Meryem 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org 
>> IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire 
>> 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________ 
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org 
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: 
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see: 
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> At-Large mailing list 
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
> 
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org 
> 
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org 
> 
_______________________________________________ 
At-Large mailing list 
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org 

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org