[governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive elements of IGF functions ommitted

[William Drake]

Hi Parminder,

>
> Hi Bill,
>
> >> I think the first clause is a mis-inference, I don't see anyone here
> saying the IGF should not discuss policy issues.  >>>
>
> I had clearly stated the logic behind what I said. The 6 points in
> Jeanette's proposal (that, as you say, came from your Malta submission) are
> lifted ad verbatim from the points in para 72 of tunis agenda. So, not to
> pick the first point in this para which speaks of IF as a place for Internet
> related public policy discussion, and the other two points on access to
> Internet, and taking up issues related to critical Internet resources, is
> quite glaring.

In what sense is it glaring?  As I said clearly, the purpose of the presentation
I made in Malta was to point out that Tunis Agenda gives the IGF an unambiguous
mandate to advance the WSIS principles and, to that end, interface with
existing
governance mechanisms.  Since that was what I was talking about, I cut in those
parts of the Agenda that speak to the point.  The substantive issues that the
Forum should address, including PP issues regarding critical resources, is a
separate matter. So I'm sorry, if you insist on reading into what I used and
what I did not use from the TA some private agenda regarding an unrelated
point, it's a misrepresentation.  This is especially so since, as I also said
quite clearly, I would *support* the IGF discussing the issues you are claiming
I/we oppose the IGF discussing.

> And neither her nor your email explains how these 3 most important issues
> were not picked, and other 6 picked.

My mail clearly explains why I picked the points related to the topic of WSIS
principles' application and inter-organizational relations, and not the points
that are not direct to that focus.

> >> >>>>I think this is a point of paramount importance precisely because,
> from a public interest standpoint, one would want the forum to help open up
> debate on the non-transparent, non-inclusive nature of some governance
> mechanisms, and to encourage change, but this part of the mandate---which is
> actually quite elaborate in the Agenda---is being systematically ignored
> because the more powerful states and the private sector/ISOC maintain that
> the IGF shouldn't do or even look hard at anything "being done elsewhere."
> >>>>>>
>
>
> The same most powerful states and the private sector want to keep broad
> public policy discussion, access, and critical resources issues out.... And
> CS's responsibility to keep insisting on keeping them in - and mentioning
> them everytime - becomes even more important.

I don't disagree with this, although obviously the caucus has a diversity of
views on the point.

> >>>> On the second, per my reply to Michael,  affordability and access have
> not been treated as IG issues and I don't think we could get consensus
> amongst ourselves on the matter, which is NOT to say that nobody cares about
> these issues, it's just a question of in which context are they best
> addressed.>>>>>
>
> You write in your reply to email to Michael that access has not been treated
> as an access issue in WGIG/WSIS. This is not true - inter-connections costs
> are mentioned both in WGIG and tunis docs, and point 72 e of tunis agenda
> clearly mentions issues regarding access to be part of IGF mandate.

Interconnection costs are one element of the broader access equation.  I have
long argued here and elsewhere that while there are no fixed rules or
governance mechanisms for international interconnection, there should be.  Many
others concur. So yes, this has widely been understood in the WSIS context to
be an IG-related issue.  But access more generally has not been so understood.

> And I cant see why you and others wont see access issues as at least
> possibly to be IG issues - we shd know that Internet is still going to
> evolve - and all kinds of efforts are on to evolve it in directions of
> increased commercialization. So, to put considerations of access issues in
> IGF's mandate - when we all agree that it should be wider than narrow -
> should hurt no one. And for me even domain name multilingualaism and content
> related IPR issues that have clear IG connections are access issues (access
> is not only infrastructural access). So if IGF has an mandate to look at
> every issues from an access and affordability point of view as well - I cant
> understand what could be anyone's objection to it. (as they say in feminist
> literature - everything needs to be seen through a gender lens - if you are
> seeing it so, you will find the gender elements in practically everything.
> And if you don’t want to see, you wont.)

It's a matter of being clear about what fits the category IG and what does not.
There are many globally pressing issues that don't fit clearly under the
rubric.  Saying that doesn't mean that I/we don't care about them, and implying
otherwise is not conducive to dialogue.

> >>>> I'm not sure what you mean by the third, but am guessing you refer to
> the enhanced cooperation on oversight issues.  I guarantee that the
> US-UK-Canada-Australia and private sector/ISOC will oppose that being in the
> forum, and as such it probably won't happen, but personally I would be happy
> to have the caucus statement say that the IGF should be a place where this
> is discussed.  I suspect others here would not agree, though.  >>>>
>
> But the third - the exclusion of point on critical internet resources - I
> mean simply that para 72 clearly puts it in IGF's mandate to discuss
> ' issues relating to critical Internet resources'. So why are we - CS -
> ignoring it. I cant see how US UK and others are going to oppose it because
> they signed on the document. The issue is - what we - the CS - have to say
> about it. Are we so mindful of US and UK opposing it that we also let it
> slip from our agenda - even when it is already an agreed commitment - and
> what is needed now from the CS side is to hold governments to their
> commitment.

Well they have opposed it, here in the room and elsewhere.

> I am sorry Bill, but even with your detailed explanation I am unable to
> understand what direction - and what principles and politics - is the IG
> caucus submission to the IGF consultation taking.

And I'm sorry too, I cannot understand why my explanation is unclear to you, or
why you are inferring and implying things about colleagues that clearly don't
reflect their thinking.  I say again, you think that the forum should address
public policy issues for critical resources.  Fine, I'm ok with that.  Let's
see if others agree.  If they don't, ok, views in the caucus are diverse, and
the challenge then is collegial persuasion.

Best,

Bill



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