[governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum

[Izumi AIZU]

In the small group meeting chaird by Singapore, they
agreed to ask UN Secretary General to establish the forum
in an open and inclusive process, by the second quarter
of 2006.

After several round of discussions by Brazil, China, US,
Australia, Benezuera etc, there was no consensus for
ISOC or any other technical body (that was suggested
in general), and by adding "in an open and inclusive process",
taken from Geneva document, they reached the consensus.

izumi

At 14:28 05/11/14 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>The idea that ISOC should organize and manage the forum is a
>non-starter. Forget about it. That's basically the same as saying that
>ICANN and the U.S. private sector should organize and manage it.
>
> >>> Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> 11/14/2005 12:49 PM >>>
>carlos a. afonso ha scritto:
> > One would expect proposals from such governments as Canada
>(developed
> > country) should also make considerations regarding funding for any
>new
> > mechanism. They are worried about the duration and evaluation process
>of
> > the forum, but no word on them helping to fund it.
> >
> > Of course the emphasis on capacity building *only* is unfortunate.
>What
> > do they want? A world Internet university?
>
>Hi, I don't think there's doubt on this in this caucus, we've all
>agreed
>that the forum must have a broad mission covering all IG issues,
>including but not limited to development, and we've said this loudly
>earlier today. Also, almost all parties (EU, Likemindedgroup, even
>Latin
>American countries I think, and I've heard Uruguay in favour of that)
>support this, it's just US/Canada/Australia insisting on the
>development-oriented forum.
>
>Also, US and Canada have now started to push the idea that there's no
>need for further involvement of the UN, it should be ISOC to organize
>this forum and manage it. I see the point that ISOC supports the IETF
>and so why shouldn't it support this thing as well, but I imagine we
>might be opposed, isn't it? After all, and even while being an ISOC
>Chapter officer, I think that this forum deserves the broad civil
>society participation typical of the UN settings, rather than the
>technical focus that characterizes ISOC (not mentioning its, well,
>growingly embarrassing vicinity to the US Government - I think that
>when
>you are a global organization and then the Bush administration picks
>you
>as their trustee for what they define a vital resource, you should pose
>
>yourself some questions).
>--
>vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a]
>bertola.eu.org]<-----
>http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance