[governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue"

[Avri Doria]

On 14 May 2009, at 17:26, Ian Peter wrote:

> So I don't think the outcome is a foregone conclusion and we can  
> write off
> the Chinese position as a rogue one. This is likely to have some more
> interesting twists and turns.


I can't think of anything that is ever a foregone conclusion.

And while I believe that when all is said and done, the UN GA will  
endorse continuation, it may not.

So, in that unlikely  event, is there a plan B?

I don't have a pan B, but I do have some questions about one.

The IGF has moved from being solely an international event, to being a  
national and regional process.  Do these national and regional  
processes rely on the UN in any way?  Would they wither away?

Or might this national and regional process have to ability to  
reconstitute the IGF should the UN governments decide against  
continuing it?  And would these national and regional initiatives be  
enough to legitimize the activity?


a.

____________________________________________________________
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