[governance] ICANN Delhi, Workshop: Update on Internet

[carlos a. afonso]

Yes, MM, it seems this will happen over and over again at every new
edition of the IGF... It is beginning to turn into a sad joke.

--c.a.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:38:39 -0500
Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN Delhi, Workshop: Update on Internet
Governance

>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] 
> > 
> > Markus suggests ICT and environment as a possible topic for the
> Delhi 
> > IGF, he mentions comments by Fujitsu's chairman during the Rio 
> > meeting (copied below.) This is going to be a key policy issue this
> > year: apparently came up in Davos, will be the subject of two ITU 
> > meetings (as Izumi mentioned), a GIIC/WEF meeting, some talk it
> might 
> > find its way into the OECD ministerial and perhaps G8.
> 
> I know my cynicism will rankle many, but is this anything more than
> yet
> another attempt to find a "safe" issue (like "access") that is both
> A)
> something no one can really disagree with and B) something the IGF
> has
> utterly no authority to do anything about?  Why is it global IG and
> what
> can UN IGF do about it? 
> 
> > I think another pressing issue will be critical physical 
> > infrastructure (another cable break, SE Asia last year, Western
> Asia 
> > etc this).
> 
> Fine, but let's focus carefully on the global governance issues
> associated with physical infrastructure protection. One could make a
> case for new international institutions or regimes to protect cables,
> but national governments and private carriers have many incentives
> and
> opportunities to improve the reliability and redundancy without them.
> What can IGF do about it? Why is IGF needed? Again, I am opposing the
> concept of IGF as a pure talk shop that takes up every trendy issue
> of
> the day.
> 
> > Last year there was a bit of discussion about what was meant by
> CIR, 
> > perhaps for Delhi we could split CIR as two main themes, one 
> > addressing physical resources (cable, power etc) and the other DNS 
> > and ICANN (unique identifiers)?
> 
> The split is good in that it keeps physical (layer 1) away from
> "real"
> CIR as established in the TA, which is layer 3. But please don't
> contribute to the verbal dilution of the CIR concept. If you want to
> take about layer 1, talk about physical infrastructure, don't confuse
> it
> with layer 3 CIR. 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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