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

[Vittorio Bertola]

Parminder ha scritto:
> 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. 

You are right, but it has always been clear that it should not replace 
existing institutions. Where the line stands between being 
effective/inclusive and not stepping on other people's toes is still to 
be defined, of course; and while CS supports the idea of a broad agenda 
and of not taking the "no replacement" rule in a too pervasive sense, I 
think that there is no support for getting rid of ICANN, WIPO etc... 
altogether and replacing them with the IGF.

Let me explain how I see the matter, in an algorithmic way:

- IF no organization exists to deal with an issue, THEN the IGF can 
discuss how to address the issue, and the issue itself;

- ELSE IF more than one organization exists, THEN the IGF can act as 
coordination / meeting point, encouraging them to talk to each other and 
produce compatible results, and perhaps hosting a WG to that purpose;

- ELSE (if one and only one organization exists) THEN the IGF should 
verify whether it abides by the WSIS principles, but the issue itself 
will be discussed at that organization.

In other words, to bluntly address your point, it is correct for the IGF 
to discuss whether ICANN is an open, accountable and transparent 
organization (in this, we differ from developed countries' opinion, that 
the assessment of ICANN is the subject of a separate, gov-only process) 
but not to discuss, say, gTLD policy in itself (if not, perhaps, on very 
generic aspects that pertain to other organizations as well - 
interaction with IPR (WIPO) themes, for example).

> 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.

They're written in the Geneva and Tunis commitments: transparency, 
accountability, democracy, with the full involvement etc, ie 
multistakeholderism. Now of course we need to elaborate on how to 
decline them into practice, but that's a job for the IGF.
-- 
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