<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Ian Peter wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:C685276D.416A%25ian.peter@ianpeter.com"
type="cite">
<title>Re: [governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re:
IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15)</title>
<font size="4"><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">Thanks Bill,<br>
<br>
My read, given your message, and also the strongly opposing messages as
regards the text from Jeremy and Parminder, is that we should leave the
text out altogether. Unless someone has a good compromise to suggest in
the next hour or two before Ginger submits the final version for
consensus.<br>
<br>
I think its over now to Jeremy and Parminder and others who wont accept
your text as to whether a text such as yours calling for further
discussion on the issue is more acceptable than saying nothing at all.
So let me now put the question the other way – should Bills text be
included or amended to be acceptable, or do we say nothing about
recommendations?<br>
</span></font></font></blockquote>
<br>
I wont want Bill's text to go. It formally proposes an IGC position
that the clear text on advise, recs etc in para 72 of TA may be
disputed, open to review etc. I think most views on this issue that
are against the original 'non-binding' text have been sitting on the
fence kind, but the idea that comes out of the Bill's text is that we
perhaps seek reinterpretation of TA text on IGF. Also the text to me
appears prejudiced towards being quite doubtful that recs etc are
possible/ practical.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:C685276D.416A%25ian.peter@ianpeter.com"
type="cite"><font size="4"><font
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span></font><font face="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">>>> "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the
IGF to make recommendations 'where<br>
>>> appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to
whether the<br>
>>> requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be
met. IGC<br>
>>> members also have been divided on these matters, with some
strongly<br>
>>> favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption
of<br>
>>> recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this
matter have<br>
>>> colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the
IGC believes it<br>
>>> is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing
multistakeholder<br>
>>> dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be
appropriate<br>
>>> and on the possible implications of such negotiations for
the IGF's<br>
>>> unique character."<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
<br>
On 16/07/09 6:16 PM, "William Drake"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch"><william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch></a> wrote:<br>
<br>
</span></font></font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><font
size="5"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Hi<br>
<br>
On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote:<br>
<br>
</span></font></font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><font
size="4"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> </span></font><font size="5"><span
style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Just so my position is clear I am happy
with the “may suffer” compromise, or alternatively with Bill’s text.
But as others are clearly opposed to Bill’s text and it won’t pass
consensus, I will not oppose “may suffer”. The question now is
whether inclusion with “may suffer” will be accepted in a consensus
statement or whether the whole paragraph should be dropped. My reading
is the paragraph should be in the text unless a a significant number of
people oppose it.<br>
</span></font></font></blockquote>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><font size="5"><span
style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br>
Likewise, the text demanding recommendations won't pass consensus.
McTim is opposed, and I'm opposed, on procedural more than substantive
grounds. Re: the latter, I'm not convinced that trying to negotiate
(yes, that's what would be involved) recs necessarily would turn out to
be disaster---it would depend on a whole bunch of unknowns about
modalities and focus etc on which open dialogue would be needed to
arrive at some clarity. Equally, I'm not convinced that trying to
negotiate recs necessarily would be a panacea for all that ails the
IGF, or IG more generally. But re: the former, I am definitely
convinced that we cannot move forward via processes in which one side
of a polarized discussion wins by sheer persistence, waving away the
other side's views, implying that if people don't agree then they are
spineless jellyfish unwilling to stand up for the public interest, etc.
<br>
</span></font><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="5"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">How a
statement saying caucus members have various views but all want an open
dialogue on the matter could be unacceptable is beyond me. Even for
people who want the IGF to be doing recs, I don't think insisting on
this ex ante makes tactical sense. Calling for an open dialogue on the
matter would seem more likely to provide a lever to nudge things in the
"right" direction (let's see who would stand up and oppose an open
dialogue) than simply demanding something that many other key parties
strongly oppose.<br>
<br>
On Jul 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Parminder wrote:<br>
</span></font></font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><font
size="5"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br>
I am not sure about the other side's position, and the firmness of it.
Ian did agree earlier to the 'non-binding' part - and to the whole
statement as it stands. Bill strongly suggested that it is not really
so much his view (correct me if I am wrong but that is what I read from
his email) but that of some significant others. Now who are these
hidden others who do not want to step up and share their views. And if
they do not care to, IGC statement can go without their views. The
basis of IGC's positions is deliberation based consensus, and if people
do not want to submit to this then it is entirely their choice. <br>
</span></font></font></blockquote>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><font size="5"><span
style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br>
</span></font><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">We have
been talking about recommendations off and on for four years now. Back
when WGIG released its report in July 2005 I think we expressed
cautious support for the idea of recs--indeed, those of us in the WGIG
CS contingent were much involved in writing the text that morphed into
the TA mandate---because at that point the IGF was an abstraction, and
some of us certainly were hoping for a more substantial institutional
formation in which it could have worked. But after IGF was
established, basically as an annual conference, people's thinking
evolved in different directions, and I don't recall (anyone else?) that
we ever again expressed support for recs in the many caucus statements
to follow. I don't have time to go digging through the list archive,
particularly since our subject lines are frequently not indicative of
message content, but at various points along the way I believe that
people like Wolfgang, Jeanette, and Adam have spoken against recs
(don't want to put words in their mouths, they can please correct me if
I'm wrong) and that others have as well. <br>
<br>
That many people are for whatever reasons are not participating in this
discussion does not mean we should just wave away their previously
expressed stances. As Parminder agreed, "you snooze you lose" is not a
good basis for consensus decision making. Of course, if those who
opposed before now want to reverse and support rec negotiations, that
would change things, but absent that it's not a consensus position in
my view.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<hr align="center" size="3" width="95%"></span></font></font><font
size="4"><font face="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
</span></font></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>