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

Fri Feb 17 05:51:02 EST 2006

Thanks Vittorio for clarifying the issue a lot.

A couple of points.

The main postulate in your clarification is that IGF should take up only
those issues 'that are not in the domain of other existing organizations'.
Though as you clarify, the process issues of these other organization can be
discussed by the IGF. On the face of it appears a neat separation, but the
issues are much more complicated. 

First of all, I must clarify that IGF is clearly mandated as a public policy
discussion space (along with research, presenting policy options etc) and no
way as a decision making body in any manner whatsoever. So, there is no
question of replacing ICANN, WIPO etc. 

>> I 

think that there is no support for getting rid of ICANN, WIPO etc... 

altogether and replacing them with the IGF.>>

As I see from the discussions on this CS list in the last few days the scope
of IGF is being narrowed from two directions. 

One, a lot of issues - like access, affordability - are being argued as not
being IGF issues (despite they being in para 72) 

Two, it is being argued that that IGF should take up only such issues that
are not at present dealt with other organizations. (despite the operational
para 72 interpreting IGF function much more widely).  

These two arguments tend to effectively cut down the domain of IGF in a
drastic manner. What is surprising is that such an attempt to curtail IGF's
mandate in such a manner, goes beyond what is already committed by
governments in Tunis agenda. It is even more surprising because, as I read
from Izumi's notes of the IGF consultation meeting, even developed countries
like the EU group, have re-iterated 'full compliance with Para 72 of Tunis
agenda'. But now CS seems to be strategically pulling back from full
commitment to para 72.

(As I write this I also read your today's intervention which speaks
exclusively of process and participation issues, but not on substantive
mandate of IGF, and doesn't call for a commitment to 'full compliance with
para 72' - and these are parts of Tunis agenda that were gained after a lot
of struggle, and we have been considering them among few victories from
WSIS.)

As for IGF standing by and just seeing if WSIS principles are incorporated
in the work of existing IG bodies, I repeat that it by itself is a weak and
in-effectual formulation.   

WSIS principles are really elaborate, multifarious and broad -and not
restricted to your reading of them as  'transparency, 

accountability, democracy, with the full involvement etc, ie
multistakeholderism'.

For example, if one finds that some of ICANN decisions have implication on
wsis principle of 'promoting freer access to information for all' (even the
issue of their operational costs that they collect from registries and its
implication on cost of obtaining domain names may be considered one such
issue) and that they are not 'incorporating WSIS principles in IG
mechanism', the what is one expected to do about it. Just complain to ICANN,
and expect them to change. Why wouldn't an open ended discussion on this
issue, and even presentation of options, be a legitimate domain of IGF. 

And we must also note that both 'access and affordability' issues, and
'critical internet resources' issue are mentioned in WSIS docs, as
legitimate domain of IGF. If we didn't want these in para 72, we shd have
objected at WSIS and only asked for IGF to ensure that WSIS principles are
incorporated in existing IG mechanism.

Why is CS so keen to limit IGF's domian - rather than broaden it. Typically,
governments have been the ones wary of too much open discussions etc. why is
CS getting defensive in this case. Whom or what are we defending. 

Many of us came to WSIS IG discussion because we found existing IG systems
inadequate, and often their processes/ decisions unacceptable. So when we
now see the CS insisting so much on upholding present IG systems, and trying
to see that the new body IGF is able to do the least to challenge this
system, it is disappointing. And when they are out-doing even the developed
country governments in this attempt it becomes indeed perplexing. 

The kind of argument given in your email, and those of many others here,
makes me believe that you seek essentially only two functions from the IGF

1.    To stand by and ensure that present IG structures are not increasingly
taken over by governments. And MS principle is 'retained' and strengthened
in these structures. 

2.    To work toward building IG related capacity in developing countries.
(On this point see Anriette's mail on how patronizing this can sound, even
if the need for some such thing is certainly there). 

While both these functions are important, it is quite a waste to limit IGF
to these, and to do so is to go back a lot on what many consider as the
chief gain from WSIS. I can assure you that, this view is shared by most
people from developing countries. 

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: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:07 PM
To: Parminder
Cc: 'Governance Caucus'; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
Subject: Re: [governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive
elements of IGF functions ommitted

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...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060217/58c3c6d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance