And what is wrong with the GAC? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" <isolatedn@gmail.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@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@glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
9 minutes, well worth listening to what Viviane Reding has to say.
Adam
To: governance@lists.cpsr.org
From: Meryem Marzouki <marzouki@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@lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org