[governance] Where are we going?

[Jeremy Malcolm]

Adam Peake wrote:
>> Personally and very frankly, I don't feel like including .xxx to gTLD
>> is such a big deal, and by the same token, denying .xxx is also not
>> the most important policy issue for us.
> 
> Agree 100%.  One of the tragedies of xxx is the amount of time wasted.  
> Shame it continues to distract when the next IGF consultation is about 6 
> weeks away.   Perhaps we can keep up our successful run on 
> non-contributions and leave comments to a few misguided souls who want 
> to hand the whole process back over to governments? (Bureau anyone?)
...snip...
> Anyway, xxx's irrelevant.
> 
> So what are we going to prepare for the IGF Consultation?

Hear hear on xxx.  But on the IGF Consultation, really, what is there to 
say?  I take is that the Advisory Group is continuing to serve in an 
acting capacity pending its reappointment (or otherwise - though who am 
I kidding) by the UN Secretary-General.  So why, despite having promised 
during the February consultations to improve its transparency, have we 
heard nothing more from it since then?  Is it really just because 
nothing has been happening?

We (along with many others) have already *given* our views of what 
changes should be made for Rio.  I don't see any point in reiterating 
our views again into the void.  You ask why the IGC has a poor record of 
getting submissions written on time?  Maybe that's one reason why.  What 
we need before the May consultations is for a report to be made by the 
Advisory Group and the host nation to say what use has been made of 
those existing submissions, before we bother writing more.

This is exactly the same problem that existed in Athens.  Time and time 
again, people would make the same points; in written submissions, at the 
consultations, in plenary sessions, in the follow-up process. Time and 
again their views would sink into the depths, never to resurface.  A 
number of really useful proposals simply got lost in this way.  Does 
anyone remember the Swiss Internet User Group's proposal for Internet 
Quality Labels?  No?  What about Geneva Net Dialogue's offer to help out 
with the IGF Web site?  Anyone?

The big problem here is not a lack of consultation, it is in what 
happens to that consultation.  Currently, it vanishes into the ether, 
unacknowledged and unimplemented.  No wonder people feel unempowered and 
become apathetic.  Frankly, the May consultations might as well be 
cancelled unless there is anything new that anyone has to say.  And why 
would they have anything new to say, without having had any feedback on 
the last consultations from the Secretariat, Advisory Group or host nation?

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
____________________________________________________________
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