[governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit?

[Milton L Mueller]

The IGF is not supposed to produce outcomes, but is supposed to increase understanding.

[Milton L Mueller] I don't understand why this restriction applies to IGF but not, say, to IETF, ARIN, ICANN or APNIC. In other words, why can a bunch of people get together at an IETF meeting, come to an often difficult and painful agreement, and issue a standard, compliance with which is completely voluntary, and the IGF can't do the same? IGF has no binding legal or regulatory authority, unlike ICANN, so what is to be feared from allowing it to issue recommendations, as the WGIG did?

I think it incumbent upon those who want a new body or bodies to spell out EXACTLY in which areas there are gaps that need filling, how such a new body would fill those gaps (and only those gaps).
Clearly, a takeover of ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc by a multilateral body (as proposed by IBSA) will not fill any gaps.  It's just a power play.

[Milton L Mueller] Clearly it would be. But any attempt to tell the fairly balanced group at IGF that they cannot come to an agreement and issue recommendations is also a power play by status quo groups to keep others out of the game.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111011/3fddac47/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