Feedback to WGIG

Adam Peake and myself wrote a joint comment to the Multilingualization of Internet naming system. (btw, Multilingualization isn’t a word in the English dictionary).

This paper really shock me with its biases (and attempt rewrite reality). I also finish reading 17 out of 20 of the paper and with an exception of a few (Internet names and Address, Root Server, Interconnection) the rest are seem to be written by (a) put together by people who don’t know what they writing (b) put together in a hurry (but at least they know what they writing) (c) put together by organization pushing their private interest (like the Multilingualization paper).

The overall quality of the papers by WGIG was really disappointing.

Anyway, I also finish writing (shorter) comment on some of the papers. A general question I have is how they select these 20 topics as some of them does not seem to be Internet Governance issue to me. e.g. User Protection – Yes, it is important but why is it an Internet Governance issue?

Most importantly, they avoid discussing or develop a working definition of Internet Governance which is really one of the goals for the WGIG. It is hard (10 people have 12 definitions of it) but WGIG shouldn’t have sidestep it.

1 Yep, this is what I have been doing on Chinese New Year Day.

Back To Top