[governance] RE: IGF relevance?

[Ana Neves]

Parece-me mais do q claro q Milton Mueller está a contribuir para a morte do IGF, ou estou enganada? É verdade q tanto dá "uma no cravo como outra na ferradura", mas creio q isso se deve mais ao facto de ainda haver mta gente a favor do IGF e ele assim defende onde é q o IGF poderia ter 1 papel (q n se percebe) e onde absolutamente não tem qqr papel (nas coisas verdadeiramente importantes da Internet)... q achas?

-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: quinta-feira, 14 de Abril de 2011 04:04
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: cstd at igf-online.net
Subject: [governance] IGF relevance?


I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a Network neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will be handled by national regulatory authorities. The positions of the various actors and interest groups are well known and well-aired. Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what happens in this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find some other way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter into the equation. The same can be said for Europe: the EU and national regulatory authorities are actively debating this, and it is the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG MARKT and its competition law that matter, not IGF. 

On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry out for a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background, see this recent IGP blog article: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html
In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but go beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a public list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue?

It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, ranging from Wikileaks to IP addressing there are inadequate globalized institutions. 

One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to be utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where it can be entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional environment, and issues where it has no real capacity to contribute anything. 
It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN organizations, which is to create opportunities for politicians and others who enjoy publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic problems which it has no capacity to solve, while completely avoiding the hard work of solving smaller, less glamorous problems it can actually do something about.

--MM


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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