<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Milton L Mueller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a Network neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will be handled by national regulatory authorities. The positions of the various actors and interest groups are well known and well-aired. Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what happens in this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find some other way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter into the equation. The same can be said for Europe: the EU and national regulatory authorities are actively debating this, and it is the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG MARKT and its competition law that matter, not IGF.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agree with above.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry out for a global forum to work out a new policy.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Are there? I think only those who seek to monetise IPv4 addresses see this need.</div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> For some background, see this recent IGP blog article: <a href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html" target="_blank">http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html</a><br>
In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but go beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a public list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue?<br>
<br>
It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, ranging from Wikileaks to IP addressing there are inadequate globalized institutions.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But there IS a global policy framework for IP addressing policy development, as Owen de Long just described to you on the ARIN list:</div>
<div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; ">"I think you have conflated the address distribution hierarchy at ICANN with<br>
the policy hierarchy on the address resource portion of IANA operations<br>at ICANN.<br><br>IANA address policy is controlled by the NRO/ASO structure. If you want<br>to set IANA policy (make ICANN do something with regard to address<br>
resources through their IANA contract), then, you need to propose and<br>get adopted in all five RIR policy processes a policy which specifies<br>what you want IANA/ICANN to do.<br><br>Once all 5 RIRs have passed substantially identical policy submitted<br>
to their policy development mechanisms, that is passed along to the<br>ASO AC which then recommends it be adopted or sends it back as<br>for further work if they feel that some aspect of the development<br>process did not correctly follow the process or if they feel that there<br>
are significant differences between the policies passed in different<br>regions."</span></div><div><br></div><div> </div><div>As for WikiLeaks, I don't know what you want "to be done" or indeed if anything should be done.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to be utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where it can be entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional environment, and issues where it has no real capacity to contribute anything.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Do you mean the MAG or Secretariat?</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN organizations, which is to create opportunities for politicians and others who enjoy publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic problems which it has no capacity to solve, while completely avoiding the hard work of solving smaller, less glamorous problems it can actually do something about.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Sounds about right.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>-- <br>Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>