[governance] IGF relevance?

[Milton L Mueller]

On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry out for a global forum to work out a new policy.

Are there?  I think only those who seek to monetise IPv4 addresses see this need.

Monetisation of v4 addresses has already happened and is inevitable. Either the institutions find a way to deal with this or they fail.

But there IS a global policy framework for IP addressing policy development, as Owen de Long just described to you on the ARIN list:

Then why is the head of ARIN, John Curran, who is frankly a lot more far-sighted than Owen de Long, asking where to take the issue?
The problem is that the RIRs are basically the status quo, a respected but small group whose control of address resources would be challenged by the kind of institutional changes being proposed.


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.

Do you mean the MAG or Secretariat?

I mean both.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110414/80e83a2f/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, 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