[governance] intervention draft - why are the moreprogressive elements of IGF functions ommitte

[Parminder]

Hi Milton,


[snip]
>>But now CS seems to be strategically pulling back from full
>>commitment to para 72. (Parminder)

>I don't know what you are talking about. I and Bill Drake have been leading
the charge against any narrowing of the IGF's activities. >>>> (Milton)


But I think you have not followed the discussions on the IG list, which is
the established forum for discussions within the caucus.....

Because if you did youd realize that I begun these series of comments after
a draft submission from IG caucus for IGF consultation was submitted and the
part 2 of this submission clearly had the effect of narrowing IGF
activities. And that this proposal met a series of 'ayes' other than Karen's
and Bertrand's. 

The submission in its part 2 excluded issues of (1) IGF as wider public
policy discussion space (2) access and affordability and (3) critical
Internet resources. And the first point of the submission highlighted that
IGF shd take issues that are do not fall within the scope on any exiting
body, and spoke of 'light' issues like exchange of best practices etc. (I am
enclosing that draft if you have not seen it)

All other elements in submission's part 2 were from para 72, and exclusion
of these most imp elements obviously alarmed me. Bill has since argued that
this was only a first level 'text dump' but the time was just one day prior
to the IGF meeting, and a series of ayes had come in and hardly any
opposition (please note that). So I had to oppose it strongly. And in
opposing such a formulation it is very legitimate for me to argue

>>But now CS seems to be strategically pulling back from full
>>commitment to para 72.

Why should I be wrong in saying the above in a manner of internal
contestation in the group, at this stage under conditions explained above. 

And then, there has been a series of emails on this list that did express
doubts on the need of issues of 'access' and 'critical internet resources'
to be within IGF mandate. Since these issues are there in para 72 - would
such an argument not mean curtailing IGF's mandate from even the currently
'agreed' one. In this context, I also quoted EU's submission on the first
day calling for 'full compliance to para 72'. In light of this, the draft
caucus submission and subsequent discussions on the list certainly did NOT
make it look to me as if CS is very active in favor of a wider mandate for
IGF rather than a narrower. 

It is great if you and Bill have been actively pushing for it, but I have
been responding to discussions on the list, and not your submissions which I
haven't had the opportunity to see. But generally I do know and believe that
both you and Bill have always pushed a wider un-restricted mandate for IGF.


>> but the fact is that you're just wrong in your assertions and you need to
face that fact and back down.>>

Please judge my assertions in the context in which they have been made, and
not in the context of your and Bill's submission (which since they have not
been shared on this list, I don't know much about). 

>> We have enough real battles going on here. We don't need to fight phantom
ones.>>

Milton, I will let you judge if this battle on this list is a phantom one
vis a vis yours real one. I see much substance, especially political
substance, in this 'phantom' battle. You are only adding to earlier
instances of impatience on this list to dissent in asking me to face the
facts and back down. I didn't hear you ask those to back down who have
argued on this list that they will prefer IGF to not take up all the
functions that are listed in para 72.  

Regards

Parminder  


________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 
-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 9:08 PM
To: parminder at itforchange.net
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] intervention draft - why are the moreprogressive
elements of IGF functions ommitte


Hello, Parminder.  

>>> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 2/17/2006 5:51 AM >>>
>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

[snip] 

>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).  

[snip]
>But now CS seems to be strategically pulling back from full
>commitment to para 72.

I don't know what you are talking about. I and Bill Drake have been leading
the charge against any narrowing of the IGF's activities. Our comments were
considered so provokative that EU people went around sounding out other CS
people as to whether they agreed with us. (As far as I know, everyone here
does.) The Australian delegate went out of his way today to counter our
comments.  

I understand that it is hard to keep up with a process you are not attending
and that all the emails flying about are hard to keep up with, but the fact
is that you're just wrong in your assertions and you need to face that fact
and back down. 

We have enough real battles going on here. We don't need to fight phantom
ones. 
 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CS-intervention-Geneva-consultation-forum-j-j.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 41984 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060218/50b4dc79/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance