[governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship

[Carlos Afonso]

If so, it would be an overreaction by far -- ITU is far from putting its 
act together. It is a 150-year old organization which might take several 
years to conclude its reform. At the end of it, it would not quite 
probably be multistakeholder anyway (several of its texts affirm it is 
already multistakeholder, as it includes governments and companies in 
its Board!), so what is the point of the resolution's exercise? Looks 
like last words from the Utusmi group...

The USG seems to like to make the ICANN Board suffer. After every 
declaration of this kind, ICANN has to spend weeks trying to convince 
all of the world that it is not quite so (it is, unfortunately -- real 
life is hard) and so on.

--c.a.

McTim wrote:
> Wolfie,
> 
> On 12/3/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>>
>> Is there any offcial comment by the USG on the ITU Resolution 102 from 
>> Antalya?
> 
> Perhaps the .com news is a reaction to the ITU Resolution 102?? ;-)
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance