[governance] .xxx. igc and igf

William Drake drake at hei.unige.ch
Wed Apr 18 03:48:55 EDT 2007


Hi Mawaki,

On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" <ki_chango at yahoo.com> wrote:

> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it
> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement"
> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than
> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my
> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal basis
> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum,
> the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy
> issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so
> far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of such
> authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it
> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could
> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where
> governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on
> public policy) but not without accepting external inputs
> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.)

Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what John proposed
in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is IGP's only written
statement on the matter.  And that was just a four page concept paper, more
of a teaser than an elaborated proposal.  Absent further specification, it's
natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended to entail,
and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it could be The
Solution.  That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton that you guys take the
next step and spell it out.  Otherwise we'll just go around and around
talking past each other.

On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has clear legal
bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a FC would relate to
and further clarify the disparate bits of national and international law
underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce and trade,
security, consumer protection, and so on.  I'm guessing that you actually
mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources, and that
this is why you found my comment confusing.  There are legal bases there too
but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I guess the idea is to
change them.  Fine, but then maybe you should call it an FC on the
governance of core resources to avoid further misunderstanding.  And spell
out what it might look like so people have something concrete to react to,
rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind.

Cheers,

Bill


____________________________________________________________
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



More information about the Governance mailing list