[governance] .xxx. igc and igf

[Parminder]

Hi Vittorio

Before addressing your question

> Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't
> access its present structures.

I am inclined to go to the second part of your email which surprises me,
though I know it is well intentioned.

> I think that it might be more productive to actually involve more CS
> folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF (even if you
> succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would happen after the
> discussion? 
> --

Since when have we begun to take note of resistance of any organization
before discussing it at IGF or elsewhere. Do you think a China or an Iran
(or taking all those countries to whom content regulation issues are mostly
addressed as a single unit) are not resistant to our discussing their
conduct vis a vis content regulation at IGF. But there were any number of
workshops on this issue, and a good amount of discussion in plenaries.   

To drive the point harder, did we not discuss Tunisia so much at WSIS
despite its resistance? 

As for
>what would happen after the
> discussion?

What would happen after discussion on free expression, content regulation or
an internet bill of rights at IGF ??? All these are realms in which (mostly)
governments are exclusive authorities. 

>I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which
> ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). 

But do you see a political scenario where these countries will take
directions from the IGF.

Why such special considerations to ICANN. Why would one shield ICANN from
IGF? I am not able to understand this at all.

Who made the rule that we will be discussing only those organizations/
institutions at IGF who are not resistant to such discussions? And only say
such things to organizations which we already know they are keen to heed. 

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:44 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf
> 
> Parminder ha scritto:
> > (2)     Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN - to have ICANN
> > interface with and be accountable to the many constituencies (which by
> > far makes the majority of the world's population) which cant access its
> > present structures.
> 
> Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't
> access its present structures"? There are at least a couple of places
> where civil society groups can become involved in ICANN.
> 
> I think that it might be more productive to actually involve more CS
> folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF (even if you
> succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would happen after the
> discussion? I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which
> ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). At the last ICANN meeting,
> between known faces scattered in corridors, there were talks of a fixed
> civil society meeting on the last day of every ICANN meeting - that
> might be a good point to start, for example.
> --
> vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------

____________________________________________________________
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