[governance] IGF outcomes (was Re: China's next-generation internet...)

[Norbert Bollow]

Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> >  Before that we can and should try to put together a formal place 
> > where such  things can actually be codified (other than, say OECD's 
> > CCICP) in a democratic manner, if and when there is a political
> > will to do so. But right now the dominant powers, and there
> > numerous supporters, simply refuse to even allow a UN based space
> > to start considering these issues, with a /possibility/ of being
> > able to do something about them. That is the problem right now, and
> > it cant be pushed away by providing generally pessimistic
> > perspectives on the world's political capabilities.
> 
> Have we given up on the IGF being a space where serious discussion of 
> this nature can take place? Discussion that results in outcomes of
> some kind? Has the cautious approach to the IGF adopted by some of
> its greatest supporters made it irrelevant?
> 
> I would like to see the IGF used more effectively - I am not
> convinced that a new space will succeed in achieving what the space
> that we already have is not achieving with regards to formulating
> effective - public interest bound - responses to some of the issues
> Parminder identifies.

What kinds of processes are the IGF outcome documents intended to serve
as input documents for?

Greetings,
Norbert

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