<!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 text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On Friday 21 October 2011 05:02 PM, William Drake wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
<div>This is a barrier I wish we could somehow overcome. As long
as developing country intergovernmental efforts on EC and in the ITU
appear to have intergovernmental control as their end game and the IGF
is getting tactically linked to this as you noted, one imagines the TC,
business, and a lot of governments will remain wedded to the fear that
an IGF that does more than meet and chat once a year would necessarily
get leveraged to advance that agenda. And CS proponents of more
intensive, structured and "outcome" oriented dialogues will remain
isolated and frustrated. If intergovernmental control could be taken
off the table, at least outside the ITU, that might help to make "IGF
improvements" a less divisive topic. So again, if indeed IBSA has
shifted, it'd be great for them to say so. And for more governments
beyond Brazil and a distinct minority of other G77 to demonstrate that
they take the IGF process seriously and will engage even if it doesn't
offer a path to intergovernmental control.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is another myth that a strong IGF will get used to pave the path
to inter-governmental control, and such myths appear very easily when
the
agenda is to discredit developing countries. I will like to know how
this is possible to be done. The IGF is inherently multistakeholder.
And it is open, which means that it will always be crowded by those
with better means, as we have seen it to be. With an IGF full of big
delegations from developed counties, and so many other stakeholders,
who, till now, have largely played as good allies of the developed
countries, pray, how can a handful of developing countries pull out an
inter-governmental rabbit out of the hat at the IGF... This is the
height of
convenient imagination. It one just wants to run with the status quo,
one can come with a thousand self serving explanations. Which new
institutional model does not have one or other possible risk? <br>
<br>
As Marilia suggests, with the meeting of WG on IGF improvements coming
up, it is time for the civil society to stand up and say if they are
for a stronger and more purposive IGF or not. My submission is that
anyone not ready to make the necessary changes in the IGF status quo
is the one really against multi-stakeholder policy making. And in this
regard, the clearest proposals on the table for strong and specific
changes to the IGF for strengthening it as a multistakeholder policy
influencing body (other than the distracting humdrum kind of proposals,
like 'lets
improve the IGF website') are by IBSA countries (India proposal
supported by others). <br>
<br>
In fact, in forwarding such bold proposals for developing very
significant channels of rather authoritative multistakeholder influence
on global Internet related policy making through an IGF with some
teeth, it is the IBSA countries that are going out on one limb, beyond
their traditional positions whereby they have been (too) cautious of
the kind of geo-political imbalance that can be caused by an
overwhelming presence of 'other stakeholders', that in their views have
largely weighed in on the side of developed countries, especially in
the IG arena. <br>
<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Too much to hope for?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>