[governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

[McTim]

Ian,

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Because a couple of people have written to say they do not favour the
> inclusion of text on new institutional arrangements, let me just say I
> believe this text should stay in.

I am happy that it stay in, with the proviso that the lightest weight
option is included.


>
> My reading is that, if no new institutional arrangements are contemplated or
> considered, we are left with the two current and to me unsatisfactory
> alternatives of trying to expand ICANN into areas beyond its competence and
> useful brief to deal with other issues, or alternatively as some favour to
> make all Internet issues part of the brief of ITU.

Why is it only these two options?  The Internet has thrived precisely
(in part) due to lack of global regulation.  The regional and global
policy making that does exist is largely MS and heavily CS.  Why are
we so keen to give this up to gov'ts?

To me neither of these
> potential solutions is in the least bit attractive or satisfactory.

Agreed.

-- 
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