[governance] IGF relevance?

[parminder]

On Thursday 14 April 2011 08:34 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 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.

Can you tell me about some developing countries (other than Brazil, and 
perhaps recently Chile) where anything is happening on Net Neutrality?
> 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.

So that is where your world stops :). Yes, US and EU are doing fine at 
home on NN, but can we, rest of us, not just wait till US and EU NN 
rules are finalized and through their economic (also political and 
social) might imposed on the rest of the world? By your permission, we 
are just seeking democratic management of the medium that is touted as a 
great democratic force. Do you agree to such an objective? do you want 
to contribute?

parminder
>
>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110415/ddd614fc/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