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

[Parminder]

Hi Vittorio

>> 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.>>>>


The first issue is how strongly we all believe that public policy issues
related to internet, including critical resources issues, should be
discussed by IGF. My impression all along was that IG caucus, CS generally,
WGIG and most developing countries wanted IGF precisely to discuss the
complete range of Internet related public issues. 

However, I am hearing convoluted views on this list now, that makes me
wonder if I had got it right. Please correct me if I am wrong - was IGF not
always supposed to be an open-ended Internet related public policies
discussion space. 

If not this, what is it supposed to be. Alternatively, I can only think of
the infamous Canadian 'capacity building' IGF.

And this thing about 'incorporating WSIS principles in IG mechanism' looks a
very weak and unspecific language. Why don't we clearly spell out what are
these principles. Otherwise anyone can get away with claiming that they have
incorporated wsis principles. And there are all kinds of WSIS principles -
look at the rhetoric of the opening parts of the Geneva DOP - are we asking
for incorporating that - free access for information for all, where everyone
can use knowledge..... kind of stuff.

Or if we are speaking of specific parts in Tunis agenda of IGF - well that's
exactly what I too want - all the issues of public policy discussion, taking
up issues regarding critical internet resources, access and affordability
are there in Tunis agenda. 

And if not these, please clarify which exactly the WSIS principles to be
incorporated in IG mechanisms that we are talking about.... is this just
about multi-stakeholders and CS participation. Participation in what and to
what avail ???

>>> So we might try to push this if we like, but I don't think it will
fly.>>

Since when CS takes up issues just on the basis whether they'd fly. We took
up Human rights in Tunis. Did it fly. The issue is whether we believe in
these issues and how strongly we believe. And if there is strong opposition,
we need only to put up issues more strongly, rather than say lets not press
it too hard since we are unlikely to succeed. 

In this present context we have tunis agenda which is signed by these
Northern governments and which mentions all the issues we propose to take.
And there will be developing countries pushing for it as well. So why are we
treating it as a battle already lost....

Regards

Parminder 


  

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 4:44 PM
To: Parminder
Cc: 'William Drake'; 'Jeanette Hofmann'; 'Governance Caucus'
Subject: Re: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
elements of IGF functions ommitted

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%20fo
r%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