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

[Vittorio Bertola]

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

Now that this misunderstanding has been cleared, I suggest we write text 
that reflects both Bill's point on stressing the importance of the 
"embodiment of the WSIS principles in IG mechanisms", which is extremely 
important for us, and your point on access.

Generally speaking, I know that different people in the caucus and 
elsewhere in CS have different priorities - some are desperate about 
access and resources, others are desperate about rights, others about 
procedural problems. We should not struggle to affirm any of this over 
the others, we should stress them all and most importantly try to ensure 
that the IGF is built as a mechanism that allows all different souls of 
CS to push the creation of different working groups on each of their pet 
issues, and work in parallel on each of them.

If we succeed, the result is likely to be massive, thanks to our usual 
winning weapon - running faster and longer than the other stakeholders.

And now that I've got your attention, this is the link to my IETF-like 
model for the IGF as contributed yesterday:
http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/An%20implementation%20proposal%20for%20the%20IGF.pdf
which I suspect quite similar to proposals by other people such as 
Milton (the IGP) and Avri.


P.S. In any case, please realize that almost all developed country 
governments are strongly opposed to discussing "resources" (ie ICANN 
reforms) in the IGF - you'll listen to this tomorrow by the EU Troika as 
well, I guess. They want to keep this matter for a separate, possibly 
gov-only discussion, as stated in the Tunis Agenda (which calls for a 
separate Annan-led process to discuss the "new cooperation model"). So 
we might try to push this if we like, but I don't think it will fly. 
Access, of course, is another matter.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance