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

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

As mctim says, a bad case of sour grapes.

McTim [17/11/13 23:40 -0500]:
>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
>

>____________________________________________________________
>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