<!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">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Norbert<br>
<br>
A relatively old email that I should have responded to, but was
awaiting responses to your proposal for "EC Task Force" from others. <br>
<br>
My comments are inline.<br>
</font><br>
On Friday 01 June 2012 02:41 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20120601091105.7A2501F5A@quill.bollow.ch"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Both your initial framing of questions and the way to go forward, and
the new responses to Marilia's email, are very valid, and thought
provoking. Our proposal to look at the institutional mapping and the way
forward separately for CIT/ tech standards on one side and
social-eco-cultural policy issues on the other (not that the division is
absolutely neat) is that there are different actors involved and actors
have different roles, on the two sides.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Ok, so if this description is accurate, and the way forward is looked
at separately for the two areas, I would expect that that will lead to
Enhanced Cooperation going forward separately, or not, in each of the
two areas.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
The reason for such separation is that the needs, context of ecology of
technical decision making can be very different from that for larger
political decision-making. 'Technical' refers to areas where there is
relatively not much difference and possible conflict of interests, and
thus the accent is on finding the best 'solution' which more or less
should be equally good for all. Processes like consensus building,
letting all participate equally, without going into questions of
legitimacy and representativity, emphasis on competence, knowledge of
the subject matter, giving directions without legal/ binding force, and
so on, work well, and are most appropriate for, technical decision
making. 'Political' refers to areas where there is a greater occurrence
of clearly differential interests, contexts and situations ,and so on,
of the affected parties. While the distinction between technical and
political cannot be an absolute binary, there is enough meaning and
substance to these concepts that by and large decision making
structures in these two realms are mostly structured in different ways.
There are of course always ways to connect these structures as well
(quite in keeping with your tripartite framing towards the end of your
email).<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20120601091105.7A2501F5A@quill.bollow.ch"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
My vision for Enhanced Cooperation is to put both areas together,
jointly, under a single institutional "Enhanced Cooperation Task
Force" framework, modeled to some extent on the IETF, and a single set
of process principles </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
The problem with your 'solution' is that you want to put such processes
that have worked well for technical decision-making in service of both
the tech and political realms of IG. I am not sure this will work. For
me such conflation, in many actors mind, may be 'the original problem'.
And pursuant to identification of this 'problem' did i suggest looking
at two different, parallel, but at some point connected, processes to
look respectively into the technical side and political (or larger
public issues) side of enhanced cooperation.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20120601091105.7A2501F5A@quill.bollow.ch"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">that are designed to operate as closely as
possible to what Daniel Kalchev calls "the 'common sense' law that
every human being on this planet knows unconditionally". </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
"Common sense" is easier spoken of then being able to arrive at what is
common sense in any particular case. This is especially so, and this
goes to my point of separating technical and political sides of the
problem, when there are differential and perhaps conflicting
interests, contexts etc among the involved parties. Common sense is
often just another name for 'hegemony' in the Gramscian sense.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20120601091105.7A2501F5A@quill.bollow.ch"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The output
of this "Enhanced Cooperation Task Force" would be Request For Action
(RFA) documents, which analogously to RFCs would not have direct
legal force, </pre>
</blockquote>
This is more or less exactly what was meant by trying to give greater
output and recommendatory orientation to the multistakeholder IGF, an
effort that failed because, inter alia, the technical community, did
not agree with it. Can you tell me how what you are suggesting now is
different from the proposal to give IGF power or role to give clear
recs, and these be authoritatively conveyed to different IG bodies, and
for this purpose also to strengthen the MAG, and make it internally
differentiated, policy theme wise, into working groups. One of such
working groups could have been a 'working group on the enhanced
cooperation issue', and I can see us arrive at almost exactly the same
arrangement as you suggest. Is it not so? Only difference perhaps is,
that the IGF proposal is made in general political and participation
terms that have been used historically and are understood by 'normal
people', and even more importantly, that proposal is carefully placed
in a clear institutional context, which has been carefuly nurtured for
the purpose, and has the various needed historical and institutional
continutities. Absent these, a proposal like yours for a 'EC task
force' based on nothing but evocation of 'common sense' may look very
good on paper, but in any attempt to operationalise it may immidiately
get captured by powerful actors. <br>
<br>
Therefore, before one accepts this new proposal, those who so solidly
stood in the way of giving bigger and better role to the IGF for a
similar purpose would need to explain themselves. Otherwise, I cant see
why this new proposal would has a better chance. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20120601091105.7A2501F5A@quill.bollow.ch"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">but they'd be informative and persuasive and maybe
eventually any government that doesn't follow the recommendations of
the RFAs without giving really good reasons for choosing differently
will get voted out of office quickly.
So if I agree to a bipartition framing, I fear that I might thereby
kill my vision, and I don't want to do that.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I do appreciate your commitment, and despite my comments above, would
want you to carry forward your vision. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20120601091105.7A2501F5A@quill.bollow.ch"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
But I'd agree to a tripartition framing along the lines of
(a) What are the current institutions in the "CIR + tech standards"
area, and how might an Enhanced Cooperation process be established
that addresses this area specifically?
(b) What are the current institutions in the "social-eco-cultural policy"
area, and how might an Enhanced Cooperation process be established
that addresses this area specifically?
(c) What are the concerns and challenges which are common to both of
these areas, and how might an Enhanced Cooperation process be
established that addresses both of these areas jointly?
Greetings,
Norbert
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>