[governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

[Parminder]

The geo-political North and the South are not to be taken literally. In the
sense that Australia would will not be taken to be on the Southern side of
this equation. And this sense of these terms is well accepted in the global
discourse. 

(in fact the western - eastern divide - and the draft text of IG caucus
still seems to use that, is normally not used in this sense any more in the
global geo-political discourse)

As to

>>> the people on this list, i believe, we are all among  
the privileged.>>>>

It may be so.... but to try to take on the legitimacy of a global CS - even
if partially - it is necessary that we at least try to see, conceptualize,
represent - what matters to the non-privileged. No one is claiming exclusive
rights on such representation, one is only trying to steer the debate
towards excluded concerns - as one understands them, and not necessarily
represent them.

However if say, I, as one of the not many voices from the south on this
list, were to reach  a position where I have to decide something on behalf
of the South, which will actually affect their lives, I will opt out. I will
not consider it legitimate for me to take that decision. I will be beset
with self-doubts. 

That's the difference between legitimacy of 'deliberation' and that of
'representation' that Ralf spoke of. 

So if these distinctions of legitimacies work for global community as a
whole - it also works for sections within the global community - when there
is a strong feeling that there are some structural differences of views and
interests between such sections. Presenting simple win-win situations
without going into complexities of differences serves status quo power
equations. This is the politics of the apolitical. 

Parminder 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 1:49 AM
To: Vittorio Bertola
Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

I am not sure more 'northern'* answers are valued by the caucus, but  
not responding seems the worse option.

* note:  the  people excluded from the internet are not solely from  
the south.  e.g. i work with a population of arctic northerners who  
are a less developed population and who have limited networking  
opportunities.   They view the south as the richer developed part of  
the world.

when it comes to the people on this list, i believe, we are all among  
the privileged. and yes, as with all creature, some are more  
privileged then others - not sure how that divides across the equator  
line.

On 9 nov 2005, at 03.16, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>
>
>
> * OVERSIGHT
>
> -- GENERAL OVERSIGHT
>
> 1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in
> multistakeholder settings.
>

agree

> 2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a
> governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles".
>

agree

>
> -- DNS OVERSIGHT
>
> 3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be
> governmental oversight over ICANN.

agree

>
> 4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the
> present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo.
>

agree, assuming multilateral means just nation states

> 5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be
> "anchored" to the United Nations.
>

agree

> 6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over  
> the
> DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where
> governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable.
>

not sure.  i think there may be people who want full inter- 
governmental control of all internet resources.

> 7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in
> the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable.

agree

>
> 8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved
> below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations".
>

not sure

> 9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil
> society (including individual users, the academic community, the free
> software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy
> making structures.
>

not sure.  there seem to people on this list who distrust CS as much  
as i distrust government.  there certainly are strong opinions that  
there is no representativeness in CS and hence no legitimacy for  
representation.

> 10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN,
> provided that we don't get too much into detail.
>

not sure.  there is a strong opinion that we must get into the  
details before we can accept multistakeholderism

> 11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the
> government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided  
> that we
> don't discuss the form.
>

not sure

> 12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable,
> transparent and democratic.
>

agree

>
> * FORUM
>
> 13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing.
>

not sure

> 14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be
> "anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan,
> as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it
> happen.
>

not sure

> 15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it  
> on an
> equal basis.
>

i don't think so.  see comment about the legitimacy of CS.

> 16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent,
> accountable and democratic.

agree.  for some definition of accountability or democracy

>
> 17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue".
>

not sure

> 18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact
> that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there  
> is no
> duplication of work.
>

not sure.  think there may be some participants who believe that  
issue discussed elsewhere are off limits

> 19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion  
> and
> for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals.
>

agree

> 20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding
> documents.

not sure.  some posit the possibility that it could decide to  
negotiate something hard.

>
> 21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an
> "executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it
> should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis.

agree on sentence one.  re sentence 2, note the issue on CS legitimacy

>
> 22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be  
> taken as
> a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms  
> should
> be used extensively to allow remote participation.

maybe

>
> 23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan
> to drive its creation.
>


not sure.  some participants want there to be no UN participation at  
all.

> 24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of
> stakeholder representatives should be created as well.

agree

>
> 25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before  
> the end
> of 2006.

have we discussed this?


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

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