<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#333399">
<br>
<br>
On Tuesday 24 July 2012 12:33 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:TRetm6wbjkDQFAxq@internetpolicyagency.com"
type="cite">In message <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:500E24CF.5050805@itforchange.net"><500E24CF.5050805@itforchange.net></a>,
at 10:00:07 on Tue, 24 Jul 2012, parminder
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> writes
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">the so-called APrIGF in Hongkong in 2010.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought anyone could organise an event
and call it an IGF. It doesn't need permission from anyone.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Andika">And of course next it will be claimed that
anyone can organise a global IGF. Such vaporisation of governance/
policy spaces serves those well who have nothing to get and gain
from such spaces, but not those, relatively on the margins, who
look at legitimate political structures to check power excesses
and abuses.... parminder </font><br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:TRetm6wbjkDQFAxq@internetpolicyagency.com"
type="cite">
<br>
(Similarities with the wisdom of unilaterally calling something
the "Olympics" might ring a bell with followers of the newTLD
process, if not the extensive TM protection wrapped around the
London Games).
<br>
<br>
There was a European IGF, created by the European Parliament,
which didn't get the funding it was expecting, and it's my
impression that was why EuroDIG was chosen as a name for its
alternative (which has now had several well-regarded annual
meetings).
<br>
<br>
So an alternative regional meeting in Asia-Pacific [or anywhere
else] is not ruled out, if you have issues with the current
organisers (I am entirely neutral on that point).
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>