<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [governance] Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>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>
<BR>
What say ye? Do we include or not include the following paragraph<BR>
<BR>
Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more <BR>
tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC <BR>
contends that the IGF as a whole may suffer in the long term if it does <BR>
not prove its value to the international community by adopting <BR>
mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>public policy issues.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 16/07/09 3:33 PM, "Parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Comments below. <BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
Jeremy Malcolm wrote: <BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">On 16/07/2009, at 9:22 AM, Ian Peter wrote: <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">3)?? How to deal with--leave as is, remove??, <BR>
Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new <BR>
structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more <BR>
tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC <BR>
contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does <BR>
not prove its value to the international community by adopting <BR>
mechanisms for the production of **NON-BINDING** statements on Internet <BR>
public policy issues.] <BR>
<BR>
or change to Bill's suggestion of: <BR>
<BR>
"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>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
Yes I like Bill's text <BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
I don't like it at all I'm afraid (sorry Bill) - and I should also note that despite the highlighting of **NON-BINDING** above suggesting that this wording was a change, in fact it wasn't - it was in my original. <BR>
<BR>
I'm not going to raise a fuss about the other compromises, but I think I have to stand my ground on this one. First, it exaggerates the effect of the qualifier "where appropriate". Those words cannot be used to detract from the mandate. Raising even the possibility that it might *never* be appropriate to make recommendations, is effectively to abrogate paragraph 72(g) altogether. Nobody has the authority to do that - and still less should civil society be suggesting it! What could it possibly gain us to rule out the possibility that civil society could ever have real input into development of Internet public policy through a multi-stakeholder deliberative process? <BR>
<BR>
If anything we should advocate for the *narrowest* possible interpretation of "where appropriate"; for example, to say that the qualifier is basically redundant - as even if there were no controversy about making policy recommendations in principle, there will always be particular issues on which it would not be appropriate to do so (perhaps the emerging issue is still evolving quickly). <BR>
<BR>
My second objection is that the suggested replacement is far too limiting as it is not only pursuant to 72(g) on recommendations that the IGF could produce non-binding outputs. A document might also need to be produced by the IGF in order to facilitate discourse between or to interface with other bodies, or to propose ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world, or to assess the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes, or to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet... or indeed in almost any of the paragraphs of its mandate. <BR>
<BR>
As a compromise I would accept changing "will suffer" to "may suffer", which waters it down to a similar extent as has been proposed for the other paragraphs accepted by Ian. Beyond that though, this is looking less and less like a civil society statement and more like the kind of thing ISOC might put out. Frankly as Parminder has observed, if the IGC doesn't have the guts to push for increased civil society input into Internet policy development processes, I'm not sure who will. The end result is that consumer voices will continue to be disempowered and sidelined in favour of the incumbent government and big business interests. <BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
I completely agree. and also am firmly of the opinion that this part may not be diluted any further than the compromise "may suffer" that Jeremy has offered.<BR>
<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>
<BR>
Ironical that we, through the suggested alternative text, are asking for a discussion on the subject (with a highly prejudiced language used in such asking) when we our selves in the IGC are not ready to discuss it. We have put forward a good number of arguments for more specific outcomes from the IGF and havent received a response. parminder <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>