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

[Milton Mueller]

>>> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 2/18/2006 1:14 AM >>>
>But I think you have not followed the discussions on the 
>IG list, which is the established forum for discussions within 
>the caucus.....

True to some extent, I skimmed the first half of the proposed statement and completely overlooked the second half, and when I did eventually read the second half (because of your objections) found that part of the statement irrelevant and supported those (including Jeanette) who said we could just dump it entirely. 

But more importantly, I don't like these last-minute statements and often ignore them entirely. It imposes a huge burden on people to negotiate these things over the list hours before engaging in international travel. For those of us with very demanding jobs, this is difficult. 

Since IGP had already made a timely and substantive contribution, I lacked interest in these last-minute efforts. True, the caucus has the potential to represent a larger number of people than IGP, but if it cannot act in time that does not represent an advantage.

The most rational thing the caucus did in its physical meeting here was to back off making any formal statement as a caucus, and letting the members here speak as individuals! 

>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. 

I think the intent of the drafters was to paraphrase in order to make things shorter and in so doing they eliminated language important to you (and others). But this was done unconsciously and inadvertently, as far as I can tell. The whole thing was just abortive.

>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.

For critical internet resources, there is no opposition as far as I know. How could "internet resources" be outside the mandate of an IGF? 

For "access" there is a legitimate debate on whether that is a global internet governance issue or primarily a domestic telecom policy issue. Some of us (e.g., me) sincerely believe that access issues must be confronted primarily in the context of national, local and sometimes regional telecom and development policies. I have substantial experience with China and a few other developing countries. Global institutions played a very minor role in the huge expansion of infrastructure and access there in the past 15 years. 

Global agencies such as UN or a Forum with no money cannot make any substantial contribution to the expansion of internet access. By insisting on pushing access issues in these weak global agencies, one can actually harm progress by diverting attention and resources away from the more critical policy arenas affecting access. 

>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). 

Actually my comments were put on the list within an hour of being presented here, but again, I don't blame anyone for not being able to read all that stuff. 

>You are only adding to earlier
>instances of impatience on this list to dissent 

Yes, I think it is a fair charge that people are impatient with dissent on the list. The problem is that everyone is stressed out by the need to coordinate some kind of response (herding 300 cats) under substantial time pressure, doing all this work voluntarily. 

It is fair to complain that caucus leaders did not handle this well. But it is also fair to point out that the current co-chairs asked for volunteers to replace them months ago. NOT A SINGLE PERSON responded!!! 

So there is frustration all around. I am willing to hear your views, always, make no mistake about that. Fortunately I do not have to manage the caucus.

>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.  

I guess I have not seen anyone argue that, unless you are talking about the "access" debate. But I could miss stuff. I read the list selectively, I confess. 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance