IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics)

[Adam Peake]

Riaz, hi.

Copied from another list:

>
>ICANN's Fellowship programme has now opened
>for applications for travel funding to the Toronto
>meeting:<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-23may12-en.htm>
>Applications are welcome until 8 July.
>

Try it?  Though fellowships tend to slightly favor applicants from the
region where the meeting's being held.

Adam



On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
> Guru
>
> The questions you pose are important and not adequately addressed under this
> header, especially as regards principled positions. There is adequate
> attention paid to reform (which is essentially about "effectiveness") but
> less about principled (or dare I say it on this list "radical") positions.
> International law, or governance, is both about effectiveness AND
> legitimacy. Without this parallax view, these discussions become mired in
> convolutions as the subject matter (and/or goal) is not clearly articulated
> - i.e. terrain specificity.
>
> It is NOT possible to argue or intimate that ICANN is legitimate, even
> though some try to do so. It may be effective, like IETF, but legitimacy
> will always be elusive, given current arrangements. Inadequacies abound
> about the lack of legitimacy, gTlds, intellectual property and also the
> thwarting of the will of many poor countries to have some legitimate control
> over CIR. Unless one has ideological (or pay check) blinkers this ought to
> be a moot point. For many on this list, it is not, and will not in the
> foreseeable future.
>
> On reform, there are many avenues to follow, often dictated by the realm of
> possibility that is severely constrained given current predilections. And
> more attention needs to be given to these elements from a principled stance
> as Gurstein has ventured. What I would really like to hear more about is the
> problem of marrying the technical with the non-technical as there is a
> dialectical relationship between the two (tech is tech, but tech is also law
> as Lessig puts it). But the debate would need to move away from the
> pedestrian one, "if it aint broke don't fix it" or "where is your
> alternative" as if these cannot be created, as if ICANN et al have not
> reinvented themselves to make themselves seem more legitimate dolling out
> dosh and following the Iraq & Afghanistan pacification strategy post
> invasion.
>
> There are improvements that need to be made, but I am not sure the
> imagination has been sufficiently decolonised (in general) to even pursue
> some of the inquiries you pose and perhaps some more reality is needed on
> these matters...
>
>
> On 2012/05/25 04:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>
>
>   ask ourselves how we can make the current IG more democratic.
>
>
>
>
>
> Who pays the price for the current IG regimes and lack of its accountability
> to the "global society"? Conversely, who does it benefit disproportionately?
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

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