Some messages coming out of the IGF Critical Internet Resources session

I've read with care the transcripts from today's sessions of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio de Janeiro. Some key observations and notes:

1. The overwhelming, unagreed presence granted to host-country participants has broken the balance which was carefully worked out by the IGF Advisory Group. Unrequested, potentially (and some actually) biased statements, from the opening session and from the opening to the summary of the CIR session are fulfilling my forecast that the stakeholder balance could be broken by asymmetric rules.

2. After two hours of discussing ICANN, David Appasamy says "I'm afraid in the kind of preoccupation we have had with ICANN, we haven't quite covered critical internet resources which could be more at the regional or national level." Another forecast fulfilled. Yet the Chair concludes that there is interest in the subject (a Perogrullo truth; but the point is not whether there is interest - the point, made by John Klensin in the opening session, is whether discussing ICANN again is the best use of the opportunity cost incurred by convening and holding the IGF.)

3. The second intervention by Juan Fernandez can be summarized as "Not all is rosy in the Internet. Here are some problems. [lists them]. None are within ICANN."

4. Milton's view that the GAC and governments have no place within ICANN. So he wants them to convene outside ICANN. What? They already have the UN, the ITU, UNESCO, WIPO... Is he suuggesting that they all merge? that they form a committee? And, what would be the relationships between the domain-names-UN-UNESCO-ITU-WIPO and ICANN? Permanent confrontation? If it is cooperation between equals, then... you get ICANN again. If you keep them outside, what will make governments listen fairly to all other stakeholders? This seems one more act of magic-wand waving.