[governance] Reposting Workshop 2: Successes and failures of

[Natasha Primo]

Hello All,

Just briefly ...

I agree with Bill that the workshop scope would need to be clarified  
further and also that, as Jeremy proposes,  this work can be done in  
subsequent planning discussions. What is important is that the scope  
is framed such that panelist talk to similar issues and that we cave  
have an actual *conversation* rather than inputs that talk past each  
other. I think an active moderator would be part of that equation ...  
and that selecting a moderator would require as much care as selecting  
panelists.

I don't think we should at this stage get too up in what anyone  
considers failed or successful processes, though. That would be the  
subject for the panel discussion, no?

Jeremy, in response to an earlier question, APC is available to help  
coordinate this workshop.

Thanks,
Natasha



On 14 Apr 2010, at 6:57 AM, McTim wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>  
> wrote:
>> On 13/04/2010, at 3:56 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>
>> This workshop will compare the changing institutional and procedural
>> approaches that have been applied to the problems of Internet  
>> governance
>> over the last 15 years, and facilitate the sharing of various  
>> perspectives
>> about the effectiveness and legitimacy of each approach.
>>
>> Could someone provide some examples to clarify the focus here?
>>  What institutional and procedural approaches to which problems of  
>> Internet
>> governance would we be talking about?  Only actually existing or also
>> proposed?  Is the idea to consider the relative merits of, for  
>> example,
>> intergovernmental vs. MS vs. private sector arrangements?
>>
>> Existing past and present approaches, ranging from very informal
>> decentralised arrangements for governance of Usenet, more  
>> hierarchical
>> private approaches such as the RIRs and IETF, the evolving private
>> management of the DNS (in the shadow of governments) through ICANN,
>> multi-stakeholder experiments such as CGI.br, purely governmental  
>> such as
>> the OECD... you can think of as many examples as I can.
>>
>> If so, a comparative assessment would probably be better if one could
>> identify issue spaces to which the different models were applied,  
>> e.g.
>> intergovernmental vs PS approaches to privacy rules, rather than  
>> comparing
>> apples and oranges.
>>
>> I agree with the desirability of not drawing too many close  
>> parallels across
>> different governance domains, would think that we can drill down to  
>> that
>> level once we have selected the panelists and begun to brainstorm  
>> with them
>> about the exact content of the session.
>>
>> In each case reference will be made to the WSIS process criteria  
>> which
>> recommend the full involvement of governments, the private sector,  
>> civil
>> society, and international organizations in Internet governance
>> arrangements.
>>
>> Would this be the criteria for making judgements as to which is a  
>> success
>> and which is a failure?  In which case everything that's not MS  
>> would be
>> deemed a failure? (!) Or  would there be some other criteria?  If  
>> so, could
>> we have an illustration or two of successes and failures and the  
>> basis for
>> the judgement?
>>
>> No that would be too simplistic.  I probably wouldn't be a  
>> panelist, so my
>> opinions aren't worth anything, but I would say that there are  
>> privately-run
>> ccTLD registries like SIDN, Nominet and (to a lesser extent) auDA  
>> that have
>> largely been a success, whereas clear failures to date have been  
>> the ITU-led
>> process around the ENUM standard, and the RIR-led migration to IPv6.
>
> I don't understand why either of these can be considered failures.
>
> I've been involved in both processes and it is fairly trivial to get
> either one. Just because users haven't adopted either one as much as
> some would like doesn't mean they are "failures".
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ 
\//\\//\/
Natasha Primo
National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative
Association for Progressive Communications
Johannesburg, South Africa
Tel/Fax: +27118372122
Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo








____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t