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

[parminder]

On Sunday 19 May 2013 01:17 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> 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.

To clarify, it this about gov participation in ICANN and other such 
technical management/ governance systems? That it appears was the 
original intention of the Brazilian proposal, along with proposing that 
somehow ITU takes a central role in enabling perhaps even fronting such 
participation.... Is this the main thrust here? If not what is this all 
about? What exactly is meant by 'range of multistakeholder Internet 
governance processes' in which governmental participation is to be 
integrated... Which processes are meant here.

I have a feeling that at this moment different people are trying to 
place different burdens on this above statement..

You are saying it is relatively uncontentious... while I am, first of 
all, not able to understand what is it about ...

I cant say it is important or not without being clear what it is 
about.... I just felt it is unimportant becuase I cannot really get what 
is it really saying. So, if you can clarify that would greatly help.

parminder



>   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}'
>
>
>
>