The Future of the Internet Governance Forum

[Jorge Amodio]

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Andrew A. Adams <aaa at meiji.ac.jp> wrote:
> This is very worrying. I would expect the whole of NCSG to support signing up
> to the ISOC letter. Also, this is probably worth raising with the ICANN staff
> and Board, I would think.

Unfortunately the UN, better said, some member states, have been
pushing for long time to get a much firm grip and "ownership" on
Internet Governance related issues, by increasing the involvement of
ITU or creating a similar organization under the UN umbrella to assume
"control" of Internet governance, regulations, and administration of
common resources.

While there may be many positives and interesting experiences and
engagement at the IGF preparatory, regional and general meetings, the
truth is that on the general meetings many of the presentations/dialog
during the main sessions are a parade of prepared statements without
any chances of involvement for other organizations to reach common
ground.

UN is not a multistake holder friendly organization, and one of the
key issues is "representativeness", which is also a big issue at ICANN
where the model seems to show some signs of working but actually there
are some that are more representative than others, we have a disparity
of resources between groups to be able to participate in a fair and
level plain field, and the final decision process by the "BoD Junta".

The CSTD decision is worse than not letting other stakeholders be part
of the WG, only 20 members states will be in the group, 3 for each
ECOSOC region plus the five countries that hosted IGF meetings. It
will be interesting to see how each region selects their
representatives given that afaik their are planning to have the first
meeting next week.

And yes, ICANN, together with ISOC and other organizations already
signed the letter/petition.

Regards
Jorge