<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:56 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;">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><div class="im">
<p class="MsoNormal">The IGF is not supposed to produce outcomes, but is supposed to increase understanding.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></b></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] I don’t understand why this restriction applies to IGF but not, say, to IETF, ARIN, ICANN or APNIC. In other words, why can a bunch of people
get together at an IETF meeting, come to an often difficult and painful agreement, and issue a standard, compliance with which is completely voluntary,</span></i></b></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Do you mean an RFC? BCP? These need to be published via the RFC Series Editor process.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"> and the IGF can’t do the same? IGF has no binding legal or regulatory authority, unlike ICANN, so what is
to be feared from allowing it to issue recommendations, as the WGIG did?</span></i></b></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>creeping intergovernmentalism I think is to be feared. I think the national IGF could produce some kind of recommendation to a national authority. Regional and global IGFs producing rec would be less useful IMO.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If the global IGF had a body (plenary?) that could come to a consensus on an issue, then some states would want that pushed to the UN GA for ratification, with all that entails.</div><div><br></div><div>
I think you also have a healthy skepticism about this type of outcome.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"> </span>
</i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div class="im">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think it incumbent upon those who want a new body or bodies to spell out EXACTLY in which areas there are gaps that need filling, how such a new body would fill those gaps (and only those gaps).<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Clearly, a takeover of ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc by a multilateral body (as proposed by IBSA) will not fill any gaps. It's just a power play.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] Clearly it would be. But any attempt to tell the fairly balanced group at IGF that they cannot come to an agreement and issue recommendations
is also a power play by status quo groups to keep others out of the game.</span></i></b></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>or an attempt to hew to the TA mandate.</div>
</div><div><br></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>