[governance] RE: website

[Joy Liddicoat]

Hi sorry for the delay in getting back to you

Don't worry about being new to NCUC - I haven't even been there a year yet
;-)

There has been a lot of concern about the ITU initiatives - are you
following that debate? A lot of it is on the internet governance caucus list
- you can join by emailing here: governance at lists.igcaucus.org

I think your ideas are excellent and well worth sharing - don't be shy - but
also don't be worried if there is "robust" comment - it is kind of the
culture of NCUC

Are you going to the Prague meeting?

Joy 

 

 

From: Kristina Macaulay [mailto:kristinamac at mac.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2012 8:37 p.m.
To: Joy Liddicoat
Subject: RE: website

 





Hi Joy,

I'm very new to the NCUC, so forgive me if I've raised something is
irrelevant. I'm still find my feet as to what is the full remit/ focus
"reality"/ Scope of the NCUC.
For example, I don't see why we should be concerned about OpenNIC, as its an
alternative that has too many risks associated. If we are going to choose an
alternative to raise/discuss, it should be the IPV6 Chinese one...

I've been speaking with the CEO of http://www.wcit2012.org/en/
They have changed their focus to discuss a harmonised approach to policy
instead for the October Conference. They are discussing with various
Governments, the ITU- e-governance remit does not sit with the GATT's
agreement. So from what I can see e-governance is a WTO push through
http://www.wcit2012.org/en/.
What is of interest is that they look to reflect the non-commercial sector
yet I can't see any non-commercial representation 'official body' for the
Digital Society. Which is in my view is really necessary as the ITU (unless
your very rich) is expensive to join annually ($10 000). I've negotiated to
be represented at the WCIT and wrote the Scottish IT Strategic Agenda for
them to discuss. One of the points was about the long term representation of
non-commercial environment within the Internet, under the general ethos of
accredited governance.

So regarding the working group, what I found of interest, was that they seem
to have some prominent players behind them, (.secure) for instance. Why I've
followed this, is because I think they are running a high risk solution.
What I mean by this, is if you are  going to suggest a better policy for the
Internet gTLD's (example) you require a clear methodology and process for
review. Not just a alternative suggestion report drafted by prominent
players. But as we have seen with the IRT sometimes such like reports get
taken on board.

What I'm suggesting is that as there isn't a unanimously endorsed process of
how an issue should be reviewed, amended or changed...which renders the
legitimacy of validation fragile.  

Anyway as I said, maybe this is not a NCUC issue...you'll know.

Warmly,

Kristina
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120522/9af3dadd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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