[governance] ICANN taxes/fees

[Jeremy Malcolm]

George Sadowsky wrote:
>> 77. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace
>> existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations, but
>> would involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It would be
>> constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process. It
>> would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the
>> Internet."
> 
> This may be the wording of the Tunis agenda, but in fact, I believe that 
> both Nitin desai and Markus Kummer have stressed that the purpose of the 
> IGF is discussion, and that appears to be the opinion of members of the 
> advisory committee also.  There may have been some rethinking about the 
> mandate of the IGF after Tunis; I'm not sure.

It is not their place to determine that, and it infuriates me that there 
has been such a concerted attempt to emasculate (sorry to feminists) the 
IGF's potential.

You are right, a trip to Athens to communicate with people from 
different sectors over coffee was pleasant for all concerned.  Rio will 
be even more pleasant, I'm sure.

But that is completely not the point.  I would much rather productive 
conflict than convivial irrelevance.  And there are practical ways in 
which consensual deliberation on public policy issues between and within 
stakeholder groups can be fostered, but journalist-led panel 
presentations are not one of them.

-- 
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