[governance] Key contributions - come from all sorts of places..

[Veni Markovski]

ill,
there was a workshop at the last IGF, organized by the Worldbank 
(http://www.intgovforum.org/Athens_workshops/IGF%20Workshop%20report%20Legal%20Aspects.pdf) 
. I think it would be better to talk about a plenary, or an 
"enhanced" workshop at this time.

Yes, there's nothing bad about letting people talk about something - 
on the contrary. My remarks were in connection with the fact that 
while people try to solve the global issues (what are they? where do 
they come from? where do they go?), there are simple things, which 
each of us could do: show how things are in their own country - who 
controls the DNS/IP addresses, who deals with eNum, what's the 
policy, etc. There's nothing bad or wrong in saying, "nothing is done 
in my country", or "they are controlled by the government", or 
"private business/academia/etc is in charge". I just think that given 
the cross-cultural differences, and the interests invested, it will 
be difficult to supply a solution, which will be equally valid for 
the, let's say, end-user registrants (with 1-2 domain names), the 
commercial registrants (with 10,000 - 200,000 domain names), the 
registrars, the registries, governments, academia, private 
businesses, intellectual property lawyers, etc.

In other words - instead of looking what divides them all, let's try 
to find the things that unite them - each of them, from different 
countries and territories.

veni

At 17:53 4/26/2007  +0200, DRAKE William wrote:
>Hi George,
>
>I doubt that anyone would contest that many of the most significant 
>impediments people face arise at the national level, or that it 
>would be useful to assess good and bad practices on a comparative 
>cross-national basis in order to encourage progressive change.  But 
>I would suggest that this is complementary rather than an 
>alternative to looking at global IG mechanisms with the same 
>objective in mind, particularly insofar as local impediments may be 
>related to global or regional arrangements.  The problem comes when 
>these are posed as binary alternatives (which I note you did not 
>do), with the implication that looking at the global stuff is 
>somehow a waste of time and just "theoretical" (not a dirty word to 
>me, but also a misconstruction here).  As with the late-WSIS line 
>some tried to push, that we don't need to talk about IG when there's 
>a global digital divide out there, it sounds like an effort to 
>divert attention from something people want to talk about, which 
>doesn't go down well.  I'm all for us trying to walk and chew gum at 
>the same time, and think there's no need to devalue one in order to 
>encourage the other.  Agree?  If so, any thoughts on how to build 
>the national dimension into the IGF?  I doubt that a plenary 
>discussion would be welcome, at least by certain governments, but 
>maybe a workshop could try to lay the foundations of a useful framework?
>
>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