[governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance

[McTim]

Jeremy,

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 18/11/13 08:43, John Curran wrote:
>
> A high-level panel has been organized to consider the issues surrounding
> global Internet cooperation -
>
> "The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early 2014 for public
> comment. The report will include principles for global Internet cooperation,
> proposed frameworks for such cooperation and a roadmap for future Internet
> governance challenges."
>
> <http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html>
>
>
> So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil society
> representatives

Are they "representatives"?

for the High Level Panel on the Future of Global Internet
> Cooperation, which is what became of its 5th panel

They also chose the folks on the other 4 Panels, so why would you
think this one would be any different?



 on Internet evolution.
> Previously Fadi had claimed that the fate of the 5th panel would be a
> decision for (what is now) the 1net dialogue, but evidently this was just
> more bluff.

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-17nov13-en.htm
 may be instructive.


>
> The civil society representatives that ICANN helpful chose on our behalf do
> not include the most expert names on Internet governance evolution.

I find that many "experts" are not that expert at all.

  And
> meanwhile ISOC is "representing" civil society in other processes such as in
> the UNGA draft resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age.

Good for them, as you know, I see them as CS.

  The
> technical community, supported by its hundreds of millions of dollars in
> revenue, is eating broader civil society alive.
>

nonsense.


> We are being completely left behind while we are dithering over questions
> about whether to send the letter nominating our representatives to the
> Brazil meeting, and whether our mailing list should be open or closed.  It
> is absolutely imperative now that we put internal process issues on hold,
> and focus on urgent substantive issues.

If "we" are being "left behind" I submit it is because we have focused
on Geneva style IG for far too long.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

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