[governance] please read: APC text on Forum function

[Milton Mueller]

No, you are wrong I think. The "binding international agreements" could
serve to protect end to end and openness from interference, mostly by
governments, just as human rights agreements protect people from
interference with rights. That is not anything like an "oversight
Council" which stands above ICANN/or other Internet administrators and
providers and decides where to intervene. Perhaps the language needs to
be clarified, and its implications thought out more, but APC statement
seems to me to be merely repeating the advice some of us offered that
the Forum needs to focus on getting negotiated principles in place. The
Forum does not have the negotiation power, but could serve as a
preparatory process where things are discussed, and then taken into
other forums. In fact, that could happen whether a statement says so or
not.

>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/29/05 11:21 AM >>>
The problem is not the invocation, the problem is this:

"In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape
of
the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding international
agreements...The forum should monitor this evolving landscape with a
view
to the initiation of a process to concretize such international
agreements."

This is no fly territory to the US, business, and probably other OECD
governments.  Creeping council...

BD

_______________________________________________
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