Thanks Dee Dee.

There's been a lot of discussion of this on the Internet Governance Caucus listserv, as there was at the Nairobi IGF, e.g. at the rather clarifying main session on CIR I co-moderated http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/71-transcripts-/863-main-session-critical-internet-resources.  Since the article is from 7 November, it doesn't say that the proposal faced opposition and apparently didn't really get much traction in the UN GA.  Thankfully in my view—the GA's the last place I'd want to see making decisions about IG.  But if they'd lose the horrid CIRP proposal, which will only reinforce of NIEO style divisions without solving anything, a number of players are starting to think having a standing CSTD working group might not be such a bad idea—assuming there are in fact substantial opportunities for multistakeholder participation, which would require some procedural changes.  It might take the misdirected steam out of the enhanced cooperation debate, provide a more open alternative to the ITU's new intergovernmental only working group on the same, allow some useful points to percolate up and through the system, and give the CSTD something focused to do at its otherwise painful May meetings.  Stay tuned…

Bill

On Dec 11, 2011, at 8:04 PM, DeeDee Halleck wrote:

> http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article2604526.ece
> 
> -- 
> http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org
>