Critical Internet Resources not so critical If you were to list Internet conferences in terms of boredom, the IGF would come mid- to top-table. It doesn’t have the razzmatazz or micro-celebrities of Web2.0 conferences but then it also doesn’t suffer the long, drawn-out pondering of intergovernmental talk-fests. That’s why it’s so important that the Critical Internet …
Is anything else really "governed" on the Internet ? If no, is that maybe, why the subject gets boring ? My political self may be able to see very well in principle why this should all be done under the auspices of the ITU rather than a company registered in the State of California, but doesn't my engineering self generally tend to take the view that if something isn't broken then why waste time trying to fix it ? Would a UN committee and bureaucracy not take more tax from top level domain registrars and regional address space carve-up registrars than a private company that can't begin to be able to justify its own monopoly status ?
"The problem is that without some kind of solid outcomes from the IGF, it will be increasingly difficult to keep people interested and for people to get funds to attend."
And why exactly would this be a problem? The IGF has been a waste of space since it started. As long as the ITU Plenipot keeps its nose out, we're doing just fine. Governance not needed, thanks.
Paris, because unlike the IGF, she performs community service.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
