Hello,
Interesting exchange on ICANN issues. As some of you may notice, there's
also a mailing list on internet governance in case anyone is interested in
subscribing to follow the exchanges more closely.
Warm regards,
Angela
----- Original Message -----
From: "Veni Markovski" <veni@veni.com>
To: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb@bertola.eu.org>; "Veni Markovski" <veni@veni.com>
Cc: <ct@wsis-cs.org>; <governance@lists.cpsr.org>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WSIS-CT] Re: [Governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Civil Society
Priorities Document
>
> >We are living a similar situation in Italy. But no matter how bad it
> >might be my national government (I think you heard about our Prime
> >Minister, did you?):
>
> who hasn't:)
>
> >if I have to choose between having my ccTLD under
> >the ultimate responsibility of my government, and having it managed by
> >an US corporation responding to the US government, I don't have any
> >doubt about choosing the former; not just for a matter of national
> >sovereignty and independence from foreign powers of any kind, but also
> >for the principle of local devolution of powers which is at the bottom
> >of the nature of the Internet.
>
> I think what we must aim is to make ICANN as open and transperant as we
> wish. On the other hand, so far the US government and people has not shown
> some disrespect for Internet-related issues; in fact if it wasn't for
them,
> we wouldn't have been able to write to each other today.
>
> >Local political battles are to be won at the local level; moving them
> >at the global level, given the present lack of truly democratical
> >governing structures, is very, very, very dangerous. It might help you
> >to win a battle once, but it will make you lose the war.
>
> It's not an issue of war and peace. It's an issue of how to make ICANN
> better. And I still prefer ICANN to my local government or even worse - to
> an intra-governmental body to control the Internet (as it was said during
> the WSIS intersessional).
>
> >Thus ICANN should not be allowed to have binding powers on ccTLDs
> >except for some very limited technical issues about root zone entries,
> >and should not be allowed to use such powers to force ccTLDs to accept
> >binding conditions on policy issues, as it tried to do in the past.
>
> Actually, if what you say was true, we would have changed the local .bg
> ccTLDA a long time ago; fact is it's more difficult to change ccTLDA
> through ICANN.
>
> > >Regarding what ICANN did last year, I am not aware of, would be happy
to
> > >get more information from you, but also - as a director - would be
> > >interested rather than learning about bad experience from last year, to
> > >understand what are your proposals to change ICANN towards a better
working
> > >organization with larger representation of users, etc.
> >
> >We are working for that, trying to build the ALAC/RALO mechanism for
> >civil society representation in ICANN; but that mechanism will be
> >useless and nobody will care to participate, if it won't bring any
> >actual power with it. Especially, the power to elect at least half of
> >the ICANN Board.
>
> Well, let's start working on that, too.
>
> veni
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ct mailing list
> Ct@wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ct
> Civil Society Plenary: http://www.wsis-cs.org/
> Content & Themes Documents:
> http://bscw.fit.fraunhofer.de/pub/bscw.cgi/0/42953798
>