AW: [governance] enhanced cooperation

[McTim]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:
> Dear Wolfgang,
<snip>
>
>  I do have another comment, as an IGC member: what you're proposing is a
> perfect topic to be submitted as an IGF workshop proposal. Actually, we
> discussed in early February the need for exploring the oversight of all
> these organizations' activities


Seems a bit hubristic to me.

 (the discussion was a follow-up on an IGP
> paper on ICANN oversight, if I well remember), and making an IGC statement
> on this issue at IGF February consultation was even proposed (by myself).
> But, as usual, the discussion got quickly lost through dilution..
>
>  I see two possible ways to propose a workshop on this:
>  - Either by extending the scope of the workshop IGP intends to propose with
> IGC co-sponsorship (currently: 'The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?'),
> subject to IGP agreement, of course
>  - Or by making it the enlarged focus of the v2.0 IGC workshop on 'Role and
> mandate of the IGF', i.e. it would be this year on 'Governance and enhanced
> cooperation: role and mandate of involved UN institutions' or 'UN post-WSIS
> activities: role and mandate of involved institutions'.
>
>  Finally, as Parminder recently reminded in his summary of ongoing IGC
> activities, there will be a letter sent by IGC to UN under Secretary general
> with regards to UN activities on enhanced cooperation, inter alia referring
> to his letter sent to ISOC on this matter. And we have made clear in our
> analysis of the situation that there was no reason for the IGC receiving
> such a letter from the UN under Secretary general.

I think you meant "no reason for the IGC NOT receiving".

If that's the case, can you tell me why the IGC should get such a
letter?  After all, we're not an "organization responsible for
essential tasks associated with the Internet".

If I were the UN person this task fell to (no one seriously believes
the SG himself will spend any cycles on this issue, do we?),  I
wouldn't write a letter to the IGC either.

BTW, here is another example of EC that I have stumbled upon:

http://www.nro.net/archive/news/nro-icann-reaffirm.html

"NRO and ICANN Reaffirm Commitment to Relationship
8 January 2008

In December 2007, the Number Resource Organization (NRO) and the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) exchanged
letters reaffirming their commitment to formalizing the legal
relationship between the two organizations. The NRO letter,
jointly-signed by the executives of the five Regional Internet
Registries, stated the NRO's commitment to supporting ICANN, sought
ICANN's acknowledgement of certain aspects of the role of the NRO, and
committed to a deadline of one (1) year for formalizing the legal
arrangements between the two organizations.

In the letter sent by ICANN to the NRO, Dr. Paul Twomey, President/CEO
of ICANN, identified ICANN's commitments to the NRO and
re-acknowledged the roles of the Address Supporting Organization
(ASO), the NRO, and the RIRs as described in the ASO Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU). Dr. Twomey also committed ICANN to working with
the NRO to finalize the legal arrangements between the two
organizations within the one year timeframe."

I've also just rec'd the draft agenda for the RIPE community Enhanced
Cooperation Task Force meeting.

Can you still say "nothing has been done on 'enhanced cooperation' (at
least, as far as we know from publicly available information)"?  It's
all publicly available, if you care to look!

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
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