IGF Mandate Renewl
owen at delong.com
Mon Dec 7 19:35:55 UTC 2015
> On Dec 7, 2015, at 11:08 , Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> but the ITU is a larger conference over more time, so that's a plus, right?
The ITU is much less democratic and fails to incorporate a wide variety of stakeholders.
The IGF isn’t 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.
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> The IGF is certainly preferable to moving this role into the ITU.
>>> On Dec 7, 2015, at 07:37 , Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik at civeo.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
More information about the NANOG