[governance] EC consultation in NY: my report

[Lee W McKnight]

Avri,

Exactly.

My suggestion for Izumi and Bill: make the same point as Milton, ie only way forward is to recognize that enhanced cooperation comes through strengthening IGF and not undermining it.  

The Brazil/India/South Africa proposal is the opposite of an open process, and hence not likely to work as the governments may hope.  

In sum Izumi: I suggest you mak point that IGF IS nascent 'enhanced cooperation;' next step over next five year phase would be for IGF to - send messages in a bottle or gasp - make recommendations; with inclusion of all stakeholders. AND - that IGF can help elaborate a framework of principles....see Bill we don;t need no convention, we got one already.

The Internet technical community folks which have been dragging their heels on strengthening IGF haven't been careful in what they wished for, since it is not at all far-fetched in present climate that governments do step in and muck things up. More than they have already. Basically, if you have the Obama admin and Republicans both trying to assert state power over expression on the net, AND China punishing nations who dare go to a Nobel awards ceremony, AND Brazil, India and South Africa agreeing - essentially, with the US and China - that the solution is more governmental approaches to Internet governance...who's left to stand up? 

good luck

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:35 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report

On 16 Dec 2010, at 00:04, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> And if you are truly in favor of the status quo, then you should embrace IBSA because it will be easy to isolate the critical states there.


I also question, if the governments go off and do their own thing, why would any of the Internet governance organizations ever comply with their decisions.  Have they forgotten that one of the important reasons for the multistakeholder model was to give them an entry into the discussions,  and that without a multistakeholder model, they have very little means of affecting anything?  Yes, they can make some national laws and maybe even a framework treaty, but technology can always evolve around the laws and regimes they might create.  the only way to achieve anything is through a multistakeholder processes where everyone buys into the legitimacy of the process to at least some extent.

Or to put it another way, how does one achieve enhanced cooperation locked in room by ones self.

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

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