[186274] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IGF Mandate Renewl
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Dec 7 14:38:03 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLabvogF_s+HiH1vxeCTq+MK3r_FgmRo=7Ngy14=15f3X-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:35:55 -0800
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Dec 7, 2015, at 11:08 , Christopher Morrow =
<morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> but the ITU is a larger conference over more time, so that's a plus, =
right?
Not necessarily.
The ITU is much less democratic and fails to incorporate a wide variety =
of stakeholders.
The IGF isn=E2=80=99t a whole lot better in this regard, but the IGF has =
the advantage of being a non-binding cooperative process
where the ITU can fall back on certain treaty obligations to inflict its =
will.
> also, it's international, and telephone, so really .. .they are super
> qualified to talk about internet governance stuff.
Sarcasm, right?
Owen
>=20
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> The IGF is certainly preferable to moving this role into the ITU.
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>>> On Dec 7, 2015, at 07:37 , Steve Mikulasik =
<Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> The UN's Internet Governance Forum is up for renewal at the end of =
2015, without UN approval they will be shutdown. I am relatively new =
here and haven't seen much discussion about IGF and UN (attempted) =
involvement in the internet. How do people feel about the IGF and should =
it be renewed by the UN? I can't really figure out what gap they fill =
other than being big conference.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> =
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum#2015_mandate_renew=
al
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
