[governance] [6 of 6] How best to link with international

[jefsey]

Jeremy,

the IGF was designed to assemble dynamic coalitions of control of 
enhanced cooperations having precise charters in terms of governance 
actions. Enhanced cooperations stay limited to the ISOCANN for IP 
address (mis)management and the care(ful limitation) of the namespace 
on economic/marketing grounds. ISOCANN reports to the UN are .. limited.

I observe that due to a generalised lack of command of the Internet 
technology abilities, the private sector was able to convinced the 
regalian area and the international community that it should stay in 
control for stability sake. Now, this governance by the Industry 
(ISOC and Unicode Members, ICANN sponsors, registries, and 
registrars) has the possibility to change due to the coming change of 
architectural nature in the internet and its namespace as examplified 
by the IDNA2008 documents. The root has already become a matrix, the 
domain names have switched from being identifiers and became 
designators on my machines. It happens that this results from the 
Internet lead users, i.e. the civil society implication into the 
world digital ecosystem (WDE) adminance. This is the occasion for the 
civil society to articulate an enhanced cooperation to govern these 
new issues and opportunities. Once the IAB has clarified its 
positions on all of this, the ball will be in our field.

Keeping looping on the private sector assigned circuit will lead us 
to nowhere new. It is time to be prepared to quit that business best 
interest enforced-sensus and get at our own interest in life: the 
civil society best interest. The best way to prepare this is to 
consider two major topics from a strict civil society point of view 
(that is if the civil society intends to keep representing end users):

- the enhanced cooperations' nature, advised organisation and 
initiating process. Because we will to initiate at least one 
including ICANN or not.
- the governance expectations from the technology and of its 
emergences. The internet of the future has first to be a response to 
the users' needs. I am surprised that the IETF also has to invent 
what the users should need.

Otherwise, the civil society should consider as a priority to 
formulate a new process permitting the users to benefit/participate 
into the IGF debate rather than to probably see a new grassroot 
internet and societal development outside of the IGF meeting point.

jfc



At 11:36 02/07/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>The final question of the MAG questionnaire, which we have been 
>progressively working through, is:
>
>How best to link with international processes and institutions?
>
>The discussions that take begin at the IGF mostly end there, 
>too.  Although we hear much about the effect that the IGF is having 
>in the wider world, the Secretary-General's report on the IGF's 
>renewal noted "that the IGF had not provided concrete advice to 
>intergovernmental bodies and other entities involved in Internet 
>governance" and "that the contribution of the IGF to public 
>policy-making is difficult to assess and appears to be weak".  A 
>workshop held on this issue by IT for Change in Sharm had reached 
>the same conclusion.  So how do we improve this state of affairs?
>
>We might recommend that just as the IGF and its workshop organisers 
>will be appointing online rapporteurs to bridge between online and 
>offline discussions during meetings, so too there should be 
>rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions 
>at the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act 
>as a conduit for feedback from those institutions.
>
>Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and 
>workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes 
>place in the latter.  Alternatively, they could be limited to the 
>main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the 
>output of workshops back into main sessions was realised.
>
>In either case, such summaries transmitted from the IGF need not 
>take the form of recommendations (though in the rare event that a 
>rough consensus had been reached on a particular issue, there is no 
>reason why they couldn't take that form).
>
>Do you like these ideas, or do you have others of your own?  Let's hear them.
>
>--
>
>Jeremy Malcolm
>Project Coordinator
>Consumers International
>Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala 
>Lumpur, Malaysia
>Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>CI is 50
>Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer 
>movement in 2010.
>Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect 
>consumer rights around the world.
><http://www.consumersinternational.org/50>http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>
>Read our 
><http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>email 
>confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100702/5ffb5330/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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