<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Comments below. </font><br>
<br>
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:81695573-96EE-428B-896C-580035B48041@ciroap.org"
type="cite">On 16/07/2009, at 9:22 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">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>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes I like Bill's text
<br>
</blockquote>
<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>
</blockquote>
<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>
</body>
</html>