[governance] IGC's questions to the IGF

[Parminder]

Thanks Ralf (and Jeremy). I am sure we can improve on our strategy to get
the best outcomes, and will invite other comments on this...

 

one

> simple

> meta-question:

> 

> -> Who is supposed to answer these questions?

 

Yes, that is THE question. And I am deliberately engaging on that question.
After all who or what is the IGF? 

 

We often are critical about it only being a 'talk shop' but then we often
get caught in promoting that conception of the IGF. I think here there is a
strategic political choice or trade-off to be made, and we need to make it
now.

 

One is the nature and quality/quantity of participation, openness,
inclusiveness MSP-ness etc etc. and on the other hand is relevance,
effectiveness, meaningfulness, outcome-orientation and such.  All political
institutions make that trade-off. We have democratic governments which
function in a certain manner, and we aren't too happy about it, but we know
it is better than not having a government at all or having a despotic
government. And at the same time we keep engaging with the institutions of
governance to make them more inclusive, transparent etc.

 

Somewhat similar choice has to be made about the IGF. We have to sacrifice
some participation, inclusiveness, openness etc to a 'system' which have
some amount of 'representative-ness' - whereby it is able to act as an
effective 'structure' which can have a body and agency, and can produce some
outcomes. And we can keep engaging with it to improve the manner of its
inclusive, transparency and openness.  I know IGF isnt supposed to be a
'decision making' structure, but that doesn't take a non-talk-shop agency
aspect completely away from it, as I have argued with reference to its WSIS
mandate.   

 

> it is supposed to be a multistakeholder forum, we 

"are" the

> IGF as much as

> the governments and the other stakeholders are it.

 

 

You know that it is only a part-myth, we would live to believe in and invest
in. For example, I did not decide the format of the IGF, and am completely
of a mind to have it very differently given a choice.. But, I accept that
there is a 'system' or 'structure' which decided it, and which - though it
doesn't work exactly as I would want it to - I am fine 'ceding' some power
to for the sake of some effectiveness and outcomes. 

 

And if we really were the IGF - Id like to know how can I arrange an
official interaction with the ICANN (72 c of the agenda) which bears the
stamp of the UN-IGF and where I can ask some questions to it, and to which
it is obliged to engage with (since ICANN seems to have some internal
obligations to international law and organizations, and IGF is an official
UN body). Obviously, only a clearly demarcated system or structure can do
this, and so is also true of other things that I have listed in the IGF
poser...

 

So, my view is that we should invest in developing some 'structure' for the
IGF - (so that everyone knows -> Who is supposed to answer these questions?)
and then provisionally accept the shortcomings the system, knowing that it
is still a big advance over purely governmental systems, and that we have
some leverage inside the system, and keep engaging with the system to make
is more inclusive and participatory. 

 

I remember that when MAG was formed, there was a debate on this list - and
many opined that MAG should not decide this and this, and that IGF SHOULD
DECIDE THESE THINGS. I at that time and argued for accepting some
'structurality' and representative-ness of the IGF as the only plausible
way, and to engage with it. (Though I myself, as most of us, wasn't too
happy with the MAG). Now that Nitin Desai has made clear that 'IGF has no
members' and therefore it cannot decide anything (his words) id now like to
know what those who were against MAG deciding IGF agenda etc have to say to
this..

 

So lets be practical and pragmatic. because it appear no one else is
bothered.

 

 > Pragmatically speaking, I would change the questions into

> statements. This

> will help facilitating a quick&dirty debate among ourselves

> on how we want

> to have the IGF develop itself. And it will give us some

> advantage to most

> of the other stakeholder groups who expect a conference and

> nothing else.

 

Though I am open to change in our strategy, I had posed it as questions
precisely to provoke a quick and dirty debate. And also to call for
answer-ability and accountability from those who expect it only as  a
conference (and therefore cited the WSIS mandate extensively)

 

> If we leave it in the form of questions, we should at least

> be prepared to

> answer them in the debate.

 

That we certainly should be ready to do..

 

> Maybe something to discuss at the IGC meeting?

 

If we are really to put a joint position at the IGF in this regard, it is
better to have a good exchange of views on the list, because time is short. 

 

Parminder 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890

Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055

www.ITforChange.net 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Ralf Bendrath [mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de]

> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:02 AM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF

> 

> Parminder wrote:

> > *_Some Questions from the Internet Governance Civil Society

> Caucus to

> > the Internet Governance Forum  _*

> Thanks a lot, this really helps moving forward.

> 

> I don't want to comment on the details the possible fine-

> tuning, but am

> more concerned with the larger picture. It boils down to one

> simple

> meta-question:

> 

> -> Who is supposed to answer these questions?

> 

> A normal reflex would be to look at Markus Kummer, Nitin

> Desai, or Kofi

> Annan, as they got the task assigned from the WSIS. But they

> would just

> hand it over to the governments, as the decision came from

> there. You can

> imagine what their answer would be...

> 

> Therefore I think we should answer them ourselves and just

> act *as if*

> they had been answered in the way we prefer.

> 

> One example. A couple of times the list of questions says

> "what is IGF's

> plan" or something in this direction, and you hit it directly

> in question

> 2 when you address the "agency" issue. This is the wrong way,

> as it sounds

> like we delegate the answer to someone else, whoever this may

> be. But if

> it is supposed to be a multistakeholder forum, we "are" the

> IGF as much as

> the governments and the other stakeholders are it. So, let's

> try to answer

> these things for ourselves - and convincingly enough or at

> least with some

> powerful support to make others even follow us.

> 

> Of course, the tough part is then to come up with smart

> answers that we

> all think are a) feasable and b) legitimate. But this is our

> job. We very

> much missed out on developing a grand vision for the IGF

> beforehand that

> would live up to the expectations of the Tunis agenda.

> 

> Maybe something to discuss at the IGC meeting?

> 

> Pragmatically speaking, I would change the questions into

> statements. This

> will help facilitating a quick&dirty debate among ourselves

> on how we want

> to have the IGF develop itself. And it will give us some

> advantage to most

> of the other stakeholder groups who expect a conference and

> nothing else.

> If we leave it in the form of questions, we should at least

> be prepared to

> answer them in the debate.

> 

> Best, Ralf

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> 

> For all list information and functions, see:

>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061023/10f841f1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061023/10f841f1/attachment.txt>