[MemberPubPol] [chapter-delegates] FYI - in the coming discussion of the WGIG questionnaire

[Fred Baker]

Patrick stated that he wanted more inclusiveness, especially to 
non-insiders - something more multilateral, with better geographic 
diversity. I'm trying to figure out who is not included that he wants 
included, and what the definition of an insider is. It's not like the 
registries or registrars (Verisign, Afilias, etc), for whom there is a 
technical definition of "insider", run the ICANN board. It's also not 
like the ICANN board is limited to US and western Europeans; I believe 
that there is at least one Bulgarian on the ISOC Board, and there are 
certainly board members from Chile, Mexico, Senegal, Brazil, Japan, 
China, and a number of other countries. In the IETF, we have 
currently-posted internet drafts (work in progress) from people whose 
email addresses use the TLDs ag, ar, at, au, be, biz, ca, ch, cn, com, 
cr, de, dk, edu, es, fi, fr, gov, hk, hu, ie, il, info, it, jp, kr, li, 
mil, mx, net, nl, no, nz, org, pl, pt, ru, se, sg, to, tw, uk, and us.

I'd like to understand his statement. I could respond to it without 
first clarifying in my own mind what he means, but my answer might not 
be a very good one in that case.

In your previous note, you complained that I ask you for clarifications 
frequently. Yes, I do. In my perception, you tend to make blanket 
statements (statements characterized by the words "always" and 
"never"), and statements that I have trouble figuring out how to 
specifically implement. So I ask for clarification. I continue the 
discussion when matters become clear to me. And I tend to not reply to 
emails that suddenly change the topic, such as starting from a 
discussion of public policy on a public policy list and suddenly 
diverting to a discussion of the place of chapters, .org politics, and 
ISOC funding. I tend to try to stay on topic, answering emails on a 
given topic with a response that is on the topic. I don't know how to 
have a rational discussion otherwise.

Still looking for an answer to the question. To my thinking, taking 
into view http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=multilateralism, it 
sure looks like multiple nations and stakeholders are involved, and 
they are not limited to the G8 nations, companies that are obvious 
recipients of funds from TLDs, or such. So I'm wondering specifically 
what aspects of multilateralism Patrick is looking for. Ditto 
geographic diversity.

On Jun 20, 2005, at 6:59 AM, Veni Markovski wrote:
> At 06:53 20-06-05  -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
>>> The question is not if the current structures did something wrong. 
>>> It is more how we can improve the current structures to make them 
>>> more inclusive, especially to non-insiders.
>>
>> I understand the question generally. Specifically, who would you like 
>> to see included in the ICANN process that has no access today?
>
> To use your words, define "access".
>
> veni