[governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues

[William Drake]

Hi Jeanette,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann

> regarding your first suggestion to add our stuff to the list of major
> goals, it seems this is a question of political preferences and weight.
> We can certainly suggest this addition but so might 10 other caucuses
> who believe that gender issues, community radios and other vital issues
> constitute crucial goals. In other words, this is for the editor
> to decide.

I understand your concern, but a few points in response:

First, while it is indeed possible that other groupings might want their
issues so positioned, I don't think the addition of one sentence on IG
would be the primary reason for this.  There are already grounds for such
a response. Second, IG was by any measure the most heatedly contested and
headline grabbing focus of phase II. This is not a personal interest-based
assertion that IG is ‘more important’ than other items, I think it’s a
statement of empirical fact.  There was a high-stakes global battle
underway that CS expended a great deal of effort to weigh in on, and we
actually had an impact in some important respects, so why should we be
afraid to say this was a major concern going in?  If I were a government
or press person reading the statement, I’d certainly wonder why IG wasn’t
listed as a key objective.  Third, frankly, my preference would be to have
passages on each of the three main foci of the negotiations as determined
by governments---IG, financing, and follow-up and implementation---and one
each on HR and multistakeholder inclusion; that is, three issue-specific
and two cross-cutting objectives.   Starting from what phase II was
actually about seems entirely logical and a clear basis upon which Ralf
could explain what is listed here and what is not.  There is anyway lots
of text later on in the statement on issues that received more emphasis in
phase I.

> 2. IG caucus participation: I like your wording but wonder whether we
> should be so specific about the working group we are discussing. Do we
> have already agreement on the scope of the working group? I am not
> convinced yet that the wg should solely focus on "modalities". So why
> not something like "...create a working group that will make
> recommendations on relevant aspects concerning the IGF".

Makes sense, I was just using the extant formulation.  Since Avri's ok
with your suggestion, unless someone objects, I hope Ralf can take this on
board.  Re: Vittorio's concern, I don't think saying that the caucus will
try to set up a WG implicitly or explicitly means that any other CS
grouping can't do what it wants.

> I agree with your points re "public good".

I don't think it makes sense for CS to patently misconstrue a
straightforward concept from economics, but it’ll probably remain in there
regardless.

Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public
awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the four
para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a
role in shaping.  Clustering like points and having thematic sections that
come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way
constitute a downgrading of this important concern.

Again, since Ralf is trying to wrap this up by tomorrow and wants to know
that there is buy in before he makes changes, I hope people can weigh in
yea or nay on the two IG points.

Best,

Bill


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance