How big the WGIG? And other thoughts on dismembering ICANN
Date: Thursday September 16 2004, @08:02PM
Topic: WSIS

Governments and international organizations are beginning to weigh in for the consultation exercise on the WGIG conducted by Swiss diplomat Markus Kummer in Geneva next week. Four governments - the USA, Canada, Japan, and Norway - have filed comments. A key debate concerns the composition of the WGIG - how big should it be and how many of its members should be from governments, how many from the private business sector, and how many from civil society? [Editor's note: corrected text inside]

Canada supports a small WGIG, asking for only 15-20 members. Its intervention says nothing about how many of them should be governmental. Japan wants a WGIG with 40 members. Half of them would be composed of representatives of national governments, leaving international organizations, intergovernmental organizations, civil society and business to divide up the rest. [Editors note: Japanese diplomats have corrected this misreading of their comment. Japan intends for the 'government' part of the WGIG to include intergovernmental organizations as wellĘ.] Japan would also like to see an "Advisory Committee" attached to the largish working group. Norway calls for "balancing" efficiency and representativeness (gee, thanks) but offers no number.

The WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, on the other hand, offers a breath of fresh air. It proposes a smaller WGIG, with 20-30 members, but the members would be equally divided among civil society, private business, and governments. Most deliciously, it calls for intergovernmental organizations and international organizations to be relegated to observer status - which makes sense, since the WGIG will be debating and discussing those organizations' role.

Japan believes that management of addresses and domains should remain in the private sector. Norway, on the other hand, openly considers disbanding ICANN, and distributing its functions among the GAC, WIPO and the ITU. Norway calls for beefing up GAC's budget and says that it can no longer be relegated to a "mere counseling role." Oh boy.

The USA says nothing about the size or scope of the WGIG, but sets forth some bland principles (pro-competition, private sector leadership, keep networks secure, a chicken in every pot, etc.).

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
How big the WGIG? And other thoughts on dismembering ICANN | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 16 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Threshold:
Check box to change your default comment view
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:Milton Hits the Mark
by Mueller ({mueller} {at} {syr.edu}) on Saturday September 18 2004, @08:34AM (#14164)
User #2901 Info | http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/

As our report makes clear, IEEE does not create Internet standards. IEEE standards apply to Layers 1 and 2; e.g. Ethernet and 802.11 wireless standards.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Milton Misses the Mark - Again ? Leaves OUT IEE
by Mueller ({mueller} {at} {syr.edu}) on Sunday September 19 2004, @05:23AM (#14172)
User #2901 Info | http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
Hey, Jim Fleming, why do you post anonymously? Don't you stand behind your comments? Are you embarassed by their content? Are you trying to create the appearance of massive support for your ideas by repeated anonymous postings?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.




  • This article comes from ICANNWatch
    http://www.icannwatch.org/

    The URL for this story is:
    http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/17/0431226