<!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">
Bill<br>
<br>
On Wednesday 11 May 2011 09:43 PM, William Drake wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:0D87F124-759B-4A79-BAC6-B7F3D7D341B1@uzh.ch"
type="cite">Hi Parminder<br>
<div>
</div>
<br>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333"> 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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Yes there are a lot of actors who anticipate, based on WSIS and
the wider history of global governance, that reconciling highly
diverse views and preferences would require formal negotiations.
Aside from hoping that working groups could do things in a more
rational and effective way, or proposing loose sense of the room
messages, what have we offered them in the way of other models
to work with? How might one architect a collaborative process
that sidestepped the kinds of dynamics they fear? I don't think
we (IGC, CS) have really contributed much out of the box
thinking on this that would provide much basis for concerned
parties to unclench, and meanwhile whenever governments speak to
the matter they throw it back into the intergovernmental
negotiation frame, not so helpful. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
India had a detailed proposal for such IGF outcomes at the CSTD WG,
which was supported by most developing countries. And it not a throw
back to an inter-gov negotiation framework. It is very much
multistakeholder, with going into good detail on how
multistakeholder participation should be structured to make it more
representative. What are your views on that proposal.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:0D87F124-759B-4A79-BAC6-B7F3D7D341B1@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>So we end up with polarization and immobility. It's
reminiscent of the situation circa 1994 with the definition of
IG, it took orthogonal third way thinking from CS to uncork the
thing. We haven't done the same on "outcomes."<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Give us your take on it. Many of us have been trying to suggest ways
to do it all these years. But if you think these attempts have not
been good enough, why dont you suggest something. Esp since you seem
to convey here that this is indeed an important thing to do. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:0D87F124-759B-4A79-BAC6-B7F3D7D341B1@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
You'd be a lot clearer if you eschewed misreading things into
what I say. I didn't say it doesn't bother me, it does. All I
said was holding up IGF's dysfunctional non-decision making
model as a solution to the need for multistakeholder decision
making seemed odd.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I said 'why doesnt it bother you' as a rhetoric. Ok, maybe 'does it
not bother you' would have served the rhetoric purpose. But I am
indeed amazed that if the IGF model is not even the right model for
you for a policy consultative process, which eG8 is supposed to be,
what is the IGF to you. I think most of us agree that it is not a
policy making forum. Then what is its purpose/ function for you? A
global conference on IG? A chat-space? Just curious to know. <br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:0D87F124-759B-4A79-BAC6-B7F3D7D341B1@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333"><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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>Can't you separate the issues of participation rights and
decision making procedures? IGF's great for the former, has
bupkis for the latter.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We're actually more or less on the same page, even if you
refuse to accept it…I just think we need to have serious
discussions about alternative decision making/consensus building
modalities. That's part of why I'm doing workshops on
institutional design and choice. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<br>
</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:part1.04080201.02080507@itforchange.net"
height="90" width="132"><br>
</span></font></font></font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>