<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Parminder<div><br><div><div><div>On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:13 AM, Parminder wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"> <div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Bill, Thanks for your comments. No it is never too late. In any case we are hardly in a position to submit these proposals on IGC's behalf without some kind of discussion on them.<br> <br> ></font>The title, "Democratic internationalization of IG," would seem to suggest that some mechanisms of IG are not at present sufficiently democratic, ergo we're >advocating DI.<br> <br> Democratic above clearly refers to the process of internationalization, to put in a caveat for those who easy conflate internationalism just with inter-country arrangements. To that extent, it is beside the point that I really do think that the present arrangements are not democratic enough. Were they democratic, why would we want to seek any change/ evolution at all. Isnt making all political decision making democratic our basic political objective. As pointed out in an email to Milton, democratic is always meant in its nuanced evolutionary meanings - of constitutionalism, rights, minority protection, civil society participation for deepening democracy etc etc. <br> <br> I am unable to understand why the term multistakeholderism as a form of governance, with all its deep structural problems and with almost no historical and philosophical/ political theoretical examination of the concept, can be used so unproblematically, while use of the richly-historical term 'democratic' needs to present so many defenses. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would be the last person to claim that multistakeholderism has a precise and globally shared meaning, but that's another matter entirely. Re: democratic, there are different understandings of the term, so for example the various meanings you and Milton are loading into it would not be accepted by many political scientists, constitutional lawyers, or for that matter governments. The problem becomes even more difficult when we move from national polities with elected representatives etc to international institutions, especially intergovernmentals. And re: the above, I don't think CS calls for change/evolution necessarily are grounded in the assertion that the (unnamed) present arrangements are not democratic enough. There are a lot of other bases upon which to critique and call for reforms.</div><div><br></div><div>We can agree to disagree, we're not going to sort out our or other IGC members' respective understandings in time to submit a consensual proposal by Monday. The main point is that a caucus submission ought to reflect at least some rough consensus on the core concepts and claims, and while there doesn't seem to be widespread yearning to engage on this, I strongly suspect that if we had time for a proper discussion considerable variation of views would become evident. </div><div><br></div><div>Personally, I'd be more comfortable with framing the first half in terms of participatory/inclusive/accountable internationalization. These terms are themselves difficult enough, but there's at least greater intersubjective understanding of their meanings.</div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><br> <br> >Wouldn't it be helpful for us to specify which mechanisms we are talking about rather than leaving it abstract, and what exactly democratic would mean in these >contexts?<br> <br> If we accept that US's unilateral political control on a lot of aspects of IG, and that of rich country clubs on many other aspects, is not democratic and fair, </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I and I suspect a lot of other readers would need to know which aspects exactly we're talking about in order to assess this claim. And 'democratic' would remain a problematic baseline. 'Fair,' if taken to refer to the distribution of costs and benefits, probably would be easier to agree on for at least some of us. Either way, I don't understand the reluctance to specify the scope of the claim here. I'm not just being picky or trying to frustrate you, I'm actually having trouble imagining what a productive workshop discussion would look like without a clear specification of the subject matter.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">and therefore not acceptable, about which there is a strong sentiment that is propelling the internationalisation debate, we will need to come up with institutional alternatives. Our desire to look for them depends on the strength of our belief and conviction in the above regard. But if I do have to suggest some models, models 1, 3 and 4 suggested by WGIG are not a bad place to start from. </div></blockquote><div><br></div>The IGC rejected all of these during WSIS...but I guess this indicates what the intended scope is. You're proposing the ws be about ICANN 'oversight' then?</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">Does IGF have a role, as suggested by a recent position paper of the IGP? Anything, as long as we are sure that the point where we are is not acceptable. <br> <br> However, if you wish we give a greater clarity about the mechanisms we are talking about, i will like to hear your formulation of them. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>If I'm understanding you correctly, I'd call it a ws on "Inclusive Internationalization of ICANN Oversight." But then I'd also imagine that at least some caucus members would question whether that's really a topic on which we have enough agreement or can have a non-retro discussion. Either way, I'm just asking that if we submit something as a collective caucus proposal, we all actually understand what we're proposing, per previous practice. For me at least your initial framing was too abstract to evaluate, much less organize. So let's say clearly what we mean and see if folks agree with it. If they do, fine.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div></div></div></body></html>