[At-Large] R: R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Tue Apr 26 17:59:00 UTC 2016
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 26 Apr 2016 16:52, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> [2016-04-09 21:57:46 +0200]:
> The UN is based on a treaty. Yet the IGF has civil society, has end
users, has technical & academic communities and private sector.
SO: I can tell you that if IGF was delivering properly there won't have
been need for other parallel groups. I can also tell you that IGF has been
able to be productive/open to the extent that it is presently because of
the effort of those groups you mentioned above and not necessarily because
the UN wanted that by default. Those efforts I must tell you has taken so
much time and volunteer resource. I don't think we should put organisation
like ICANN in such operational limbo.
> Please do not confuse the instrument and the actual body
created/recognized by the instrument.
SO: I will also say do not confuse IGF which is typically an event that
discusses theory with an organisation like ICANN that works on operational
stuff which the internet as we know it today depend on to function.
I can assure you that the progress made by the groups you mentioned above
within IGF will not have been allowed by UN if it were ICANN. This is about
power and control my dear.
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large