<html>
<body>
Jeremy,<br><br>
the IGF was designed to assemble dynamic coalitions of control of
enhanced cooperations having precise charters in terms of governance
actions. Enhanced cooperations stay limited to the ISOCANN for IP address
(mis)management and the care(ful limitation) of the namespace on
economic/marketing grounds. ISOCANN reports to the UN are ..
limited.<br><br>
I observe that due to a generalised lack of command of the Internet
technology abilities, the private sector was able to convinced the
regalian area and the international community that it should stay in
control for stability sake. Now, this governance by the Industry (ISOC
and Unicode Members, ICANN sponsors, registries, and registrars) has the
possibility to change due to the coming change of architectural nature in
the internet and its namespace as examplified by the IDNA2008 documents.
The root has already become a matrix, the domain names have switched from
being identifiers and became designators on my machines. It happens that
this results from the Internet lead users, i.e. the civil society
implication into the world digital ecosystem (WDE) adminance. This is the
occasion for the civil society to articulate an enhanced cooperation to
govern these new issues and opportunities. Once the IAB has clarified its
positions on all of this, the ball will be in our field.<br><br>
Keeping looping on the private sector assigned circuit will lead us to
nowhere new. It is time to be prepared to quit that business best
interest enforced-sensus and get at our own interest in life: the civil
society best interest. The best way to prepare this is to consider two
major topics from a strict civil society point of view (that is if the
civil society intends to keep representing end users):<br><br>
- the enhanced cooperations' nature, advised organisation and initiating
process. Because we will to initiate at least one including ICANN or
not.<br>
- the governance expectations from the technology and of its emergences.
The internet of the future has first to be a response to the users'
needs. I am surprised that the IETF also has to invent what the users
should need. <br><br>
Otherwise, the civil society should consider as a priority to formulate a
new process permitting the users to benefit/participate into the IGF
debate rather than to probably see a new grassroot internet and societal
development outside of the IGF meeting point.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
At 11:36 02/07/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The final question of the MAG
questionnaire, which we have been progressively working through,
is:<br><br>
<b>How best to link with international processes and institutions?<br>
</b><br>
The discussions that take begin at the IGF mostly end there, too.
Although we hear much about the effect that the IGF is having in the
wider world, the Secretary-General's report on the IGF's renewal noted
"that the IGF had not provided concrete advice to intergovernmental
bodies and other entities involved in Internet governance" and
"that the contribution of the IGF to public policy-making is
difficult to assess and appears to be weak". A workshop held
on this issue by IT for Change in Sharm had reached the same
conclusion. So how do we improve this state of affairs?<br><br>
We might recommend that just as the IGF and its workshop organisers will
be appointing online rapporteurs to bridge between online and offline
discussions during meetings, so too there should be rapporteurs whose job
it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to forward
them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback from
those institutions.<br><br>
Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops,
since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the
latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions
provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back
into main sessions was realised.<br><br>
In either case, such summaries transmitted from the IGF need not take the
form of recommendations (though in the rare event that a rough consensus
had been reached on a particular issue, there is no reason why they
couldn't take that form).<br><br>
Do you like these ideas, or do you have others of your own? Let's
hear them.<br><br>
-- <br><br>
<font size=2><b>Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Project Coordinator</b><br>
</font><font size=1 color="#808080">Consumers International<br>
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599<br>
</font><font size=2 color="#CC9900"><b>CI is 50<br>
</b></font><font size=1 color="#993366">Consumers International marks 50
years of the global consumer movement in 2010.<br>
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
rights around the world. <br>
<u><a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/50">
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50</a></u><br>
</font><font size=2><br>
</font><font size=1 color="#999999">Read our
<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765">
email confidentiality notice</a>. Don't print this email unless
necessary.<br>
</font><br><br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<br><br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br><br>
Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" eudora="autourl">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote></body>
</html>