[governance] PrepCom 3 IG outcomes?

[McTim]

Hi Izumi,

On 11/16/05, Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> wrote:
> Hi Bret,
>
> There is no specific language about the participation modality
> at all in the document they agreed. It is such a vague language
> yet that is why they could agree at the last minute.

ACK, It opens the door to lots of very bad things.

For example, para 48 opens the door to geographical addressing.  The
Indonesians seem to be fans of Milton's idea.  It won't fly on the
network, but nations will now have a point of leverage on this issue.

>
> It could become a point of negotiation itself, ie, how much
> the governments allow other stakeholders to participate in
> the "decision making". "particiapte" in general could mean
> obeserving in the room, making limited statements when
> the chair allow, or free intervention just like the government
> delegations. My guess is when it becomes the serious negotiation
> among the governments, they will impose certain limits to
> other actors, and individuals per se are likely not to be allowed
> to participate in a meaningful manner. YET, that is why
> this Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, for example,
> could act as a good catalyst to faciliate individuals to participate
> the process without forming or belonging another body.

I don't see the utility of participating in another process like this,
when I can actively participate in the exisiting mechanisms, and have
my voice heard directly.  What you describe above goes beyond my worst
fears on The Forum.

BTW, domain squatters have been very busy in last 18 hours registering
internetgovernanceforum.* domains

--
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice there is"
Yogi Berra

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