<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thanks.<br>
<br>
Not sure what "Recipients are expected to actively participate in
and contribute to <abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> processes, both at the meeting and
in the future." means though...<br>
<br>
But lets see... <br>
<br>
On 2012/05/29 01:47 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFabd1Kg+6_uvoRR4GHCUD2Lbrp76PuJSbZ8FqRfT2Jkrz+O0Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Riaz, hi.
Copied from another list:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
ICANN's Fellowship programme has now opened
for applications for travel funding to the Toronto
meeting:<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-23may12-en.htm>
Applications are welcome until 8 July.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Try it? Though fellowships tend to slightly favor applicants from the
region where the meeting's being held.
Adam
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob@gmail.com> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Guru
The questions you pose are important and not adequately addressed under this
header, especially as regards principled positions. There is adequate
attention paid to reform (which is essentially about "effectiveness") but
less about principled (or dare I say it on this list "radical") positions.
International law, or governance, is both about effectiveness AND
legitimacy. Without this parallax view, these discussions become mired in
convolutions as the subject matter (and/or goal) is not clearly articulated
- i.e. terrain specificity.
It is NOT possible to argue or intimate that ICANN is legitimate, even
though some try to do so. It may be effective, like IETF, but legitimacy
will always be elusive, given current arrangements. Inadequacies abound
about the lack of legitimacy, gTlds, intellectual property and also the
thwarting of the will of many poor countries to have some legitimate control
over CIR. Unless one has ideological (or pay check) blinkers this ought to
be a moot point. For many on this list, it is not, and will not in the
foreseeable future.
On reform, there are many avenues to follow, often dictated by the realm of
possibility that is severely constrained given current predilections. And
more attention needs to be given to these elements from a principled stance
as Gurstein has ventured. What I would really like to hear more about is the
problem of marrying the technical with the non-technical as there is a
dialectical relationship between the two (tech is tech, but tech is also law
as Lessig puts it). But the debate would need to move away from the
pedestrian one, "if it aint broke don't fix it" or "where is your
alternative" as if these cannot be created, as if ICANN et al have not
reinvented themselves to make themselves seem more legitimate dolling out
dosh and following the Iraq & Afghanistan pacification strategy post
invasion.
There are improvements that need to be made, but I am not sure the
imagination has been sufficiently decolonised (in general) to even pursue
some of the inquiries you pose and perhaps some more reality is needed on
these matters...
On 2012/05/25 04:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote:
ask ourselves how we can make the current IG more democratic.
Who pays the price for the current IG regimes and lack of its accountability
to the "global society"? Conversely, who does it benefit disproportionately?
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance@lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>