[governance] .xxx. igc and igf

[Ian Peter]

I'm with Parminder on this, but to go further

ICANN reform might be useful - might even be attainable - but in itself does
not give us a sensible system of internet governance.

If IGF and the CS component are to be useful we need to begin looking past
existing structures and reacting to their every move and towards the
creation of structures that fill both the gaps and the areas where ICANN
cannot work effectively.



Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: 11 April 2007 03:39
To: 'Vittorio Bertola'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf

Hi Vittorio

Before addressing your question

> Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't
> access its present structures.

I am inclined to go to the second part of your email which surprises me,
though I know it is well intentioned.

> I think that it might be more productive to actually involve more CS
> folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF (even if you
> succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would happen after the
> discussion? 
> --

Since when have we begun to take note of resistance of any organization
before discussing it at IGF or elsewhere. Do you think a China or an Iran
(or taking all those countries to whom content regulation issues are mostly
addressed as a single unit) are not resistant to our discussing their
conduct vis a vis content regulation at IGF. But there were any number of
workshops on this issue, and a good amount of discussion in plenaries.   

To drive the point harder, did we not discuss Tunisia so much at WSIS
despite its resistance? 

As for
>what would happen after the
> discussion?

What would happen after discussion on free expression, content regulation or
an internet bill of rights at IGF ??? All these are realms in which (mostly)
governments are exclusive authorities. 

>I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which
> ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). 

But do you see a political scenario where these countries will take
directions from the IGF.

Why such special considerations to ICANN. Why would one shield ICANN from
IGF? I am not able to understand this at all.

Who made the rule that we will be discussing only those organizations/
institutions at IGF who are not resistant to such discussions? And only say
such things to organizations which we already know they are keen to heed. 

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:44 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf
> 
> Parminder ha scritto:
> > (2)     Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN - to have ICANN
> > interface with and be accountable to the many constituencies (which by
> > far makes the majority of the world's population) which cant access its
> > present structures.
> 
> Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't
> access its present structures"? There are at least a couple of places
> where civil society groups can become involved in ICANN.
> 
> I think that it might be more productive to actually involve more CS
> folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF (even if you
> succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would happen after the
> discussion? I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which
> ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). At the last ICANN meeting,
> between known faces scattered in corridors, there were talks of a fixed
> civil society meeting on the last day of every ICANN meeting - that
> might be a good point to start, for example.
> --
> vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/745 - Release Date: 03/04/2007
12:48
 

-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/745 - Release Date: 03/04/2007
12:48
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance