<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<br>
<br>
On Wednesday 11 May 2011 02:09 PM, William Drake wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse:
separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium;"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate;
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;"><br>
</div>
</span></span>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br>
</font> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum,
any more than the IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like
the G8 meetings proper. So I don't see that there is an
inconsistency here.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>I had a different impression based on the side events of past
68 summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World
Ec Forum's report and recs on the global digital divide (which I
wrote) and the main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised
cash (which generally failed to materialize). Other summits have
made similarly declarations on cybersecurity and whatnot that
came in part from non-IGO adjuncts. And the news reportage on
this one <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may">http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may</a> says
The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25
May before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been
conceived t<b>o generate debate and ultimately a set of
proposals from private sector stakeholders for
the consideration of the eight heads of government,</b></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
All these recs of the side events are made without formal
negotiating processes, isnt it.... In fact these are good examples
to show how deliberative processes can arrive at recs, wthout formal
negotiations. (In fact, you say, you wrote the recs on global
digital divide, that hardly looks like a negotiation process). In
fact it is unfortunate how those opposed to strengthening the policy
role of the IGF have linked IGF recs necessarily to UN style formal
negotiations. Since there cannot be such negotiations at the IGF,
there cant be recs by the IGF - their simple but deliberately
fallacious logic. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div>Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda,
but from what I'd hear this may be another one of those
international events in which Sarko tries to launch some big new
initiatives that's not been fully vetted with counterpart
countries. In this context, it'd be surprising if there are no
recs or declarations of any sort being provided by the private
sector heavies he's assembled. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
We think there will be, and we are afraid of that and are opposing
their non-inclusive nature. As is suggested from your earlier
examples of the Okinawa summit, these recs are likely to have a
powerful influence on what gets decided and announced by the G 8
meeting, which is likely to have a powerfu linflcuence on the future
of global IG. I am not clear why does this not bother you. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> And if so, then the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they
should follow, no?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
We see IGF as a public participation/ consultation model for
Internet policy making, and thus we think that its model should be
used for all forums that are supposed to input public opinion (or
that of all stakeholders) into formal policy making processes. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Or maybe I'm missing something….</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<title></title>
<style type="text/css">p { color: rgb(0, 0, 0); }a:link { }</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><font color="#666666"><font
face="FlamaBook"><font size="2"><span lang="en-US"><span
style="font-weight: normal;"></span></span></font></font></font>
<style type="text/css">p { color: rgb(0, 0, 0); }a:link { }</style>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><font color="#666666"><font
face="FlamaBook"><font size="2"><span lang="en-US"><span
style="font-weight: normal;">Parminder Jeet Singh</span></span></font></font></font><font
color="#666666"><font face="FlamaBook"><span lang="en-US"><br>
</span></font></font><font color="#666666"><font
face="FlamaBook"><font size="2"><span lang="en-US">Executive
Director<br>
IT for Change <br>
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United
Nations ECOSOC</span></font></font></font><font
face="Times New Roman, serif"><span lang="en-US"><br>
</span></font><font color="#666666"><font face="FlamaBook"><font
size="2"><span lang="en-US"><a
href="http://www.ITforChange.net/">www.ITforChange.net</a><br>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055<br>
<img alt=""
src="cid:part1.08090402.06040307@itforchange.net"
height="90" width="132"><br>
</span></font></font></font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>