Working Group on Internet Governance: Difference between revisions

Line 30:

The[[ WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus]] expressed that some of the WGIG's proposal on the issue of internet governance is not workable particularly Model 1 which calls for the creation of Global Internet Council to take over the functions current performed by the United States Department of Commerce and ICANN. On the other hand, the Caucus emphasized that it supports the recommendation of WGIG to enhance ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee ([[GAC]]) to be able to address the concerns of governments regarding specific issues and the the creation of a forum with full and equal participation of all internet stakeholders.<ref>[http://wsispapers.choike.org/wsis_igcaucus_wgig_final.pdf WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Response to the WGIG Report]</ref>

The Center for Democracy and Technology~~'s([~~[CDT]]) commented that the recommendations of the WGIG Report regarding the internet governance which calls for a drastic change in the internet governance structure is troubling. According to CDT, the three models recommended by WGIG to create a UN based intergovernmental body to replace ICANN or to assume an oversight control over ICANN will lead to negative results. CDT explained that a United Nations Agency that will assume the responsibilities currently held by ICANN may not be able to make timely decisions to address important issues such as introducing competitions or creation of new domain names. Instead of months, a UN Agency may decide after years or even decades.According to CDT, the creation of internet governance forum to provide the global internet community an avenue to voice their concerns regarding the internet governance-related issues to provide analyses and recommendations to ICANN is more feasible.<ref>[http://cdt.org/dns/icann/20050801wgig-wsis.pdf CDT Response to the WGIG Report]</ref>

The [[Center for Democracy and Technology|[CDT]]'s) commented that the recommendations of the WGIG Report regarding the internet governance which calls for a drastic change in the internet governance structure is troubling. According to CDT, the three models recommended by WGIG to create a UN based intergovernmental body to replace ICANN or to assume an oversight control over ICANN will lead to negative results. CDT explained that a United Nations Agency that will assume the responsibilities currently held by ICANN may not be able to make timely decisions to address important issues such as introducing competitions or creation of new domain names. Instead of months, a UN Agency may decide after years or even decades.According to CDT, the creation of internet governance forum to provide the global internet community an avenue to voice their concerns regarding the internet governance-related issues to provide analyses and recommendations to ICANN is more feasible.<ref>[http://cdt.org/dns/icann/20050801wgig-wsis.pdf CDT Response to the WGIG Report]</ref>

==References==

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 The[[ WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus]] expressed that some of the WGIG's proposal on the issue of internet governance is not workable particularly Model 1 which calls for the creation of Global Internet Council to take over the functions current performed by the United States Department of Commerce and ICANN. On the other hand, the Caucus emphasized that it supports the recommendation of WGIG to enhance ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee ([[GAC]]) to be able to address the concerns of governments regarding specific issues and the the creation of a forum with full and equal participation of all internet stakeholders.<ref>[http://wsispapers.choike.org/wsis_igcaucus_wgig_final.pdf WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Response to the WGIG Report]</ref>
-The Center for Democracy and Technology's([[CDT]]) commented that the recommendations of the WGIG Report regarding the internet governance which calls for a drastic change in the internet governance structure is troubling. According to CDT, the three models recommended by WGIG to create a UN based intergovernmental body to replace ICANN or to assume an oversight control over ICANN will lead to negative results. CDT explained that a United Nations Agency that will assume the responsibilities currently held by ICANN may not be able to make timely decisions to address important issues such as introducing competitions or creation of new domain names. Instead of months, a UN Agency may decide after years or even decades.According to CDT, the creation of internet governance forum to provide the global internet community an avenue to voice their concerns regarding the internet governance-related issues to provide analyses and recommendations to ICANN is more feasible.<ref>[http://cdt.org/dns/icann/20050801wgig-wsis.pdf CDT Response to the WGIG Report]</ref>
+The [[Center for Democracy and Technology|[CDT]]'s) commented that the recommendations of the WGIG Report regarding the internet governance which calls for a drastic change in the internet governance structure is troubling. According to CDT, the three models recommended by WGIG to create a UN based intergovernmental body to replace ICANN or to assume an oversight control over ICANN will lead to negative results. CDT explained that a United Nations Agency that will assume the responsibilities currently held by ICANN may not be able to make timely decisions to address important issues such as introducing competitions or creation of new domain names. Instead of months, a UN Agency may decide after years or even decades.According to CDT, the creation of internet governance forum to provide the global internet community an avenue to voice their concerns regarding the internet governance-related issues to provide analyses and recommendations to ICANN is more feasible.<ref>[http://cdt.org/dns/icann/20050801wgig-wsis.pdf CDT Response to the WGIG Report]</ref>
 ==References==