[governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<CAOLD2+YB7zwfereN48V=0uZ-z=2K67B9u4i4Z4hqwsFJ+K8k8w at mail.gmail.com>, at 
08:23:48 on Mon, 28 May 2012, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> 
writes
>both during the WSIS week in Geneva and recently on this mailing list I 
>had the occasion to hear/read a number of persons claiming (rather 
>forcefully) that the conclusions of the WSIS "clearly" meant the IGF to 
>be the or at least an instrument to implement Enhanced Cooperation.
>
>Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the matter 
>(but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not talking 
>about binding international law, the principle of "lex posterior" could 
>apply) I would be curious to know your views on which passages of the 
>WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion.

I refer you to my posting (18 May 2012 11:41:44) which describe why I 
believe the IGF is part of the delivery mechanism of EC (for example 
when ICANN runs an Open Forum it is engaging in capacity building to 
encourage stakeholders, including governments, to be come more aware and 
involved in ICANN). Similarly the ITU running an IGF workshop on 
Cybersecurity[1].

But it is only a small part, the bulk of the responsibility falling upon 
numerous organisations to do outreach outwith the IGF, for the other 51 
weeks of the year.

[1] Some are sceptical about such a role in Cybersecurity, but the ITU
     are perfectly entitled to their workshop.
-- 
Roland Perry

-------------- 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