[governance] .xxx. igc and igf

[Mawaki Chango]

I do agree that that would be a better option, knowing how hard
that may be to correct an existing organization as opposed to
creating anew, on/for clearer defined bases/missions. But it
seems people are fascinated by ICANN...

Mawaki

--- Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> I'm with Parminder on this, but to go further
> 
> ICANN reform might be useful - might even be attainable - but
> in itself does
> not give us a sensible system of internet governance.
> 
> If IGF and the CS component are to be useful we need to begin
> looking past
> existing structures and reacting to their every move and
> towards the
> creation of structures that fill both the gaps and the areas
> where ICANN
> cannot work effectively.
> 
> 
> 
> Ian Peter
> Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
> PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
> www.internetmark2.org
> www.nethistory.info
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
> Sent: 11 April 2007 03:39
> To: 'Vittorio Bertola'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf
> 
> 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
> 
> -- 
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/745 - Release
> Date: 03/04/2007
> 12:48
>  
> 
> -- 
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/745 - Release
> Date: 03/04/2007
> 12:48
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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