[WSIS CS-Plenary] Oversight: Are we forgetting principles?

[Izumi AIZU]

Thanks Milton for your observation and sorry for missing you.

As newly forced co-coordinator of the IG Caucus, I like to
address some of the issues you pointed out rightly.

First, the pace of discussion is not easy to predict, especially
the chair has started to give more slots than the initial slots
so that we have to use these, if we are to show some relevance.

Otherwise, we will be perceived as CS only demand procedual
presence but not have much substance in these difficult issues.

The statement Jeanette read this afternoon was not the CS or
IGC position at all, and she was careful not to give that as such.

And  as the drafting/negotiation is ongoing, I believe all the
way to the end of this PrepCom especially for the Forum and
Oversight paras, there will never be "too late".

At the same time, while it is ideal to have unified single CS
or IGC position on these issues, my personal opinion is that
we should also take the risk of providing our diversity of
opinions or views, too.

So I like to see alternative proposals or draft texts as much
as possible, instead of only criticizing the read statement.

izumi



At 10:47 05/09/27 -0400, you wrote:
>[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire 
>list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people]
>
>Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic 
>translation of this message!
>_______________________________________
>
>Let me begin by thanking those in Geneva for their incredibly hard and
>often quite talented work. I understand the need to improvise out there
>and to seize opportunities to influence the governmental negotiators.
>
>I do however feel concerned about the degree to which we are "flying
>blind" on the key issue of political oversight of ICANN. As Bill Drake
>pointed out a few days ago, Civil Society (and governments, too) really
>didn't do their homework on this issue. Although we agreed that
>unilateral US control was not desirable or viable, IGC never had a
>full-fledged discussion of the risks and benefits of altering current
>oversight arrangements. The WGIG report did not provide us with a well
>thought-out set of alternatives, instead producing sketchy "models" that
>raised more questions than they answered.
>
>Now we are in a situation of thrashing about superifical ideas on the
>fly, which to an external observer kinda looks like a medical operating
>room with the surgeon saying, "let's move the heart over here and put
>the liver over there," and his assistant saying, "no, let's sew it onto
>the lungs over here," and the janitor walking by and saying, "seems to
>me you could yank that whole mess out and he'd be better off," etc.,
>etc.
>
>When we are reduced to that level of improvisation, isn't it clear that
>we should back off and recognize that the issue isn't ripe yet, and seek
>continued negotiations among governments, inclusive of civil society and
>private sector? Doesn't the idea of a lightweight framework convention
>seem like a better way to proceed?
>
>Our interventions on the Multistakeholder Forum have been much better,
>but here again we seem to have forgotten the issue of accountability,
>democracy and legitimacy - how do people get onto this forum, how do we
>prevent it from being captured by a small group that can never be
>dislodged, etc. I would hope it is not too late for CS to articulate
>certain governance principles, such as rotating officers, some kind of
>democratic procedure for selecting people, etc.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary