[bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 19/05/2013, at 1:01 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> If it is about the Brazilian proposal, would you explain why do you find this particular issue is of such an outstanding significance over so many others.... I for one could never clearly understand the intent and significance of the Brazilian proposal, and I think different players are making different things of it. I dont see it as very significant thing and I am happy to let it die or disappear,  I prefer to discuss issues which have some clarity about them. Brazilian proposal, and its intent, and different people's take on it, simply do not make clear sense to me. Taking such a rather unclear issue to the IGF as the first test of IGF's recommendation making capacity to me doesnt sound as an exciting idea.  A good issue to test IGF's recommendation capacity will be such a one which everyone understands in the same way but people still have different views about it. And something which is really important. And Brazilian proposal seems to be as one of the worst candidates. However, I am happy to be explained the meaning and significance of the Brazilian proposal.


I think it is one of the best candidates precisely because it is relatively uncontentious, yet there is a strong momentum to continue to work on it and the IGF would be boosted by hosting that work.  Even ISOC and the United States indicated that they would probably support it although they would be proposing line-by-line amendments.  We got quite close to agreement on it at the WTPF, that it is a safe bet that all stakeholders can reach agreement on it, which could open the door to the IGF working on more contentious sets of principles in the future (though this first proposal is just couched as a one-off experiment).  Also I can't agree that it's unimportant; the principle of finding constructive ways to integrate governmental participation into a range of multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes is a worthy one.  Perhaps the wording can be further improved, though and this would be provide an opportunity to do that.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'