AW: [governance] Where are we going?

[Mawaki Chango]

Why are you so worried with what does the IGF allow today or
tomorrow, about enhanced cooperation? Isn't free speech
guaranteed at the Forum? :-)

I don't think IGC need to wait for the officials to change their
mind before we get ready. More often that less, official
appointees are too sensitive to the "regulation by raising the
eyebrow" to use the image someone threw out in the earlier
debate. They may even be trying to behave according to what they
assume would please the power that be - or at least won't upset
it, - creating an environment conducive to self-censoring.

So if EC is not on the official agenda, but free speech is
enforced, I don't see why IGC wouldn't organize a
discussion/workshop in order to develop a serious, consensual to
the extent possible (within IGC) and compelling document that
*cannot not* be taken into account when the officials are ready
to talk about EC (and the future of the IG
institutionalization.)

Mawaki

--- Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au> wrote:

> Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
> > My conclusion from the debate so far is that there is a
> missing link in the mechanism of involved institutions and
> organisations. We all agree that ICANN should not go beyond
> its narrow defined technical mandate. A lot of us agree also
> that it should not be the GAC (alone) to make the final
> decision. Other IG organisations (potential partners in the
> process of enhanced cooperation) are even worse positioned to
> make such a decision. One conclusion could be to create a new
> multistakeholder body for cases like this which gets for very
> narrow defined cases a final decision making mandate. This
> could be a joint GAC/ICANN Working Group or something new. Any
> ideas?
> 
> The missing link is the institutionalisation of the process
> towards 
> enhanced cooperation.  Perhaps the IGF could evolve into a
> forum for 
> that process.  Yes I know that the IGF and enhanced
> cooperation are not 
> the same thing now, but we don't have *anything* to show for
> enhanced 
> cooperation now.  There is therefore no reason why, when the
> IGF is 
> reviewed following its fifth meeting, these two WSIS outcomes
> could not 
> be reintegrated.  The IGF would need to be restructured of
> course (it 
> does anyway), perhaps with the Bureau idea being revisited,
> but with 
> much more attention being paid to its structure and processes
> than was 
> shown in convening the Advisory Group.  These questions are
> amongst 
> those that the IGF itself should consider (though no, I don't
> think 
> that's likely to be allowed to happen).
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 

____________________________________________________________
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