igfwatch.org Report : Visit Site

Technical data of the igfwatch.org

Geo IP provides you such as latitude, longitude and ISP (Internet Service Provider) etc. informations. Our GeoIP service found where is host igfwatch.org. Currently, hosted in United States and its service provider is AT&T Internet Services .

HTTP Header Analysis

HTTP Header information is a part of HTTP protocol that a user's browser sends to called Apache/2.4.25 (Debian) Embperl/2.5.0 mod_fcgid/2.3.9 PHP/5.6.30-0+deb8u1 OpenSSL/1.0.2l mod_wsgi/4.5.11 Python/2.7 mod_apreq2-20090110/2.8.0 mod_perl/2.0.10 Perl/v5.24.1 containing the details of what the browser wants and will accept back from the web server.

DNS

HtmlToText

skip to navigation skip to content igf watch a critical look at the internet governance forum main navigation my appointment to the igf mag i’ve lost count of how many time i’ve applied to join the igf’s multistakeholder advisory group (mag), but this year for the first time i’ve actually been accepted . since i literally wrote the book on the igf (well, the first such book, anyway), a number of people who supported my previous applications (thank you!) expressed confusion about why i have been turned down so frequently. because the mag is (still, in 2018!) appointed through a “black box” system of selection by the office of the un secretary-general, it’s impossible to know for sure, but one factor is certainly that the lack of accountability inherent in that system, which makes it easy for candidates who are known to be troublemakers to be quietly excluded from consideration. i plead guilty to being such a troublemaker. i’ve made as many enemies as friends since i began my involvement with the nascent igf back in 2006, hoping that it could become a showpiece of inclusive, deliberative, multi-stakeholder governance that could develop recommendations on global internet public policy that the internet community had no other way of developing. icann couldn’t do so due to its limited remit, other international institutions couldn’t do so due to their own democratic deficits, and individual nation states couldn’t legitimately or effectively do so because their borders didn’t map to those of the transnational network that they sought to govern. so we ended up in the default position, still persisting today, that the internet would be governed by a hodge-podge of badly coordinated rules, standards, norms, and practices decided largely by powerful companies and governments, on top of a hacked-together legacy technical infrastructure that, due to luck as much as foresight, still weakly favors open and decentralised solutions. in this context the fact that the igf has done nothing concrete to change the status quo by developing for itself an influential role in bringing stakeholders together to influence global public policy decisions that lawmakers, technologists, and companies make (or could make) in concert, has been for me personally, and remains, a disappointment. in case anyone hoped otherwise, i won’t be changing my tune about that now that i’ve been appointed to the mag. i’m going to be as much of a tiresome, incessantly critical jerk as ever. i don’t suffer fools gladly, but i’m even less accepting of those who lack imagination, backbone, or ambition. the mag is full of such people. and i don’t really care what they think of me. it’s going to be a fun year. march 15, 2018 by terminus uncategorized one comment closing thoughts on the failed working group on enhanced cooperation this is a letter from civil society delegate parminder jeet-singh following the final and unsuccessful meeting of the commission on science and technology for development (cstd) working group on enhanced cooperation (wgec), which yesterday failed to reach a conclusion on recommendations for implementation of the enhanced cooperation mandate in the tunis agenda . the letter is published here with his permission. dear all as the two years of wgec end (4 for me, continuing from the last wgec), one departs with a lot of learning, growth and good memoires. thank you all for being a part of it. i wish to say farewell to all, till we meet again! on the work side: after a night’s sleep over it, this is what i feel about the wgec’s work. there were promising exciting moments in the last hours. if these could have come earlier it might just have been possible for us to have made some progress. but then, unfortunately, they did not. in the end, my summative assessment is as follows. it would have been nice to have had a report, but it is more truthful that there isnt one. that is the true reflection of the state of affairs. and while we have responsibilities to ourselves and to the group of nice-ness and collegiality, there is a much higher responsibility of telling the undiluted truth to the global public. and the truth is that on the matter of how public governance of the global internet and the digital phenomenon should be undertaken in the un, we today are even more apart then we were even at the wsis. a good proof of it comes from examining what was the central piece of the excitement of the last hours yesterday (an excitement, i admit, i shared in the room at that time.). at tunis, the global community could agree that (1) the current mechanisms of global public governance of the internet were inadequate ( tunis agenda, para 60), and (2) urgent further work is needed that “could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms…” ( para 61). seventeen years after wsis, when the internet/ digital has transformed the world beyond what anyone could have imagined in tunis, and there are unthinkably monumental governance needs and challenges, a weak formulation that we can continue to consider “the possibility of new [institutional approaches]” was offered as the “big” (and the only) carrot. that too only in the last few hours. and then is was quickly withdrawn, seemingly in exchange of putting, in a portion of the report that mentioned “the key issues discussed” (and of course non agreed ), a para or two each of the two key divergent positions on the need for new institutional development. this would just have been a factual statement of what actually got presented and discussed, but not agreed. while i myself shared in the excited possibility of us getting some agreement somehow, it is evident that this was much less that what the tunis agenda already mentions. although it is admittedly better that what has ever got into the texts since then, which was why some of us were ready to take it, until the offer got withdrawn. this is where the negotiations collapsed, as time was in any case not on our side. a “no report” therefore conveys the fact of the matter more truthfully to our constituents that a report that, apologies the for dismissive tone, but, honestly, largely said things to the effect that “people in the world should be more honest and friendly”. would such a report have represented progress? not in my view. it would more likely have been a smoke screen of seeming progress on the subject, for some unnecessary months or years, which would have only retarded urgent consideration of this most important global public policy imperative, which is required right now. we are already late in fact. so rather than rue that we could not agree to some weak and largely meaningless report regarding how global public governance of the internet (and the digital phenomenon) should be done, let us be satisfied that we put in our best efforts to converge, and then honestly we let the world know that there does not yet exist the political will to develop appropriate global mechanisms of public governance of the internet. even in tragedy, honestly serves better that superfluous make-believes that could elevate one’s spirits temporarily. the public interest is served best by stating the actual fact, and we did that by the act of “no report”. i much thank amb benedicto for his exceptionally patient, inclusive and capable handling of a very difficult discussion. special kudos for the secretariat for providing high quality professional help that never slipped, which let our work go on so smoothly. and a warm thanks and goodbye to all members. best regards parminder february 1, 2018 by parminder jeet singh uncategorized leave a comment is multi-stakeholder internet governance dying? over the last three months of 2017, eff has been representing the interests of internet users and innovators at three very different global internet governance meetings; icann , the global conference on cyberspace (gccs), and this week in geneva, the global internet governance forum (igf). all of these to some extent o

URL analysis for igfwatch.org

http://igfwatch.org/category/uncategorized/
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/was-my-judgment-on-the-igf-too-harsh
http://igfwatch.org/2018/02/01/closing-thoughts-on-the-failed-working-group-on-enhanced-cooperation/
http://igfwatch.org/2016/06/10/is-the-igf-retreating-from-accountability/#comments
http://igfwatch.org/page/20/
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/why-not-scrap-the-un-igf
http://igfwatch.org/2011/09/07/
http://igfwatch.org/2018/02/01/closing-thoughts-on-the-failed-working-group-on-enhanced-cooperation/#respond
http://igfwatch.org/2015/12/16/excerpts-from-criteria-of-meaningful-stakeholder-inclusion-in-internet-governance/#respond
http://igfwatch.org/2011/09/20/
http://igfwatch.org/2017/10/19/new-work-on-igf-outcomes-to-begin/#respond
http://igfwatch.org/#site-navigation
http://igfwatch.org/feed/
http://igfwatch.org/#content
http://igfwatch.org/2017/12/20/is-multi-stakeholder-internet-governance-dying/#respond

Whois Information

Whois is a protocol that is access to registering information. You can reach when the website was registered, when it will be expire, what is contact details of the site with the following informations. In a nutshell, it includes these informations;

WHOIS LIMIT EXCEEDED - SEE WWW.PIR.ORG/WHOIS FOR DETAILS

  REFERRER http://www.pir.org/

  REGISTRAR Public Interest Registry

SERVERS

  SERVER org.whois-servers.net

  ARGS igfwatch.org

  PORT 43

  TYPE domain

  REGISTERED unknown

DOMAIN

  NAME igfwatch.org

NSERVER

  NS.MALCOLM.ID.AU 162.236.14.193

  NS.BESTBITS.NET 128.199.236.247

Mistakes

The following list shows you to spelling mistakes possible of the internet users for the website searched .