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

[Adam Peake]

It's quite a tough program, a lot of work.  Regular meetings of the
Fellows each morning before the main meeting sessions start, briefings
from various ICANN "insiders" (the various chairs, committee and
working group members etc.)  Fellows are encouraged to engage with
their colleagues, support eachother, and follow various tracks during
the meeting.  ICANN's processes are complex, issues pretty arcane and
hard to penetrate for people attending the first few times.  And then
they report back after the meeting both to the Fellow program and to
some local networks.

Much more than a travel program, tries to help people understand what
ICANN does and to be quickly able to contribute. Seeing it from the
outside it seems well designed, past Fellows generally speak highly of
it, and I think there are a few on this list.  And yes, critical
voices fine.

Adam


On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> Not sure what "Recipients are expected to actively participate in and
> contribute to ICANN processes, both at the meeting and in the future." means
> though...
>
> But lets see...
>
> On 2012/05/29 01:47 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
> 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