[governance] Internet G8 meeting

[Avri Doria]

On 11 May 2011, at 09:46, parminder wrote:

>> 
>> Or is the argument that there should be open peer-level participation in the negotiation of "results."?  If that's the goals then it would seem more consistent to mention participation in ICANN as the model, although probably that'd cause indigestion in some circles.  
> 
> Since I am one of those whose digestive juices are going to be ill served by any such suggestion, can you please explain how ICANN can be a model for the kind of Internet policy issues that are on the agenda of eG8. ICANN's model seems to me made only for dealing with somewhat narrow technical issues, or thereabout. And it hardly does very well - democratic participation wise, even in dealing with those issues. 


I have to endorse this.  While ICANN like the eG8 does very well for the expression of diverse business interests, it has a long way to go before it is a paragon of the multistakeholder model as far as civil society goes.

Yes ICANN is a work in progress and an excellent crucible for developing the model, but civil society has by no means achieved parity.  What the IGC should be asking for is parity and using ICANN as a good example seems to be a bad idea.

a.____________________________________________________________
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