[governance] IGC's questions to the IGF

[Parminder]

Adam

 

> Why are you petitioning anyone?

 

I can agree that we can call it a submission or something, BUT on

 

> We participate in IGF as equals.  

 

I think we shouldn't take this myth too far... And I say it not as a
complaint. (I discussed the logic of it in an earlier email.) It is
inevitable. We all often regret it being a conference and then at the same
time promote it as a conference, and this is something I am unable to
understand.  And if it is anything other than a conference it has to have an
institutional character with some degree of 'body' and 'agency'. And
immediately then there also is a relationship of the institution to, shall I
say, its constituency. However participative or representative of the
constituency, at one level a relationship of 'otherness' remains. That has
to be true of any institution whatsoever.

 

It's a place for

> collaboration and

> discussion.

 

Yes. But we have been speaking of whether it is more than that, and if it
has the capacity for performing other functions that I listed out
specifically with respect to its Tunis mandate.

 

> Instead ask questions, make suggestions. Write them down now,

> send

> them to the secretariat.  Ask MAG members to give them to

> moderators

> of sessions.

 

That should be fine. But what happen if everyone just simply agrees that all
this is right and makes sense, and that something should be done about it.
And leaving the onus of 'doing it' on the 'unknown' other. We can then go
home from Athens with the knowledge of the righteousness of our stand and
little more. There must be someone or something that is answerable about the
non-fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. Now if you say each one of us equally
is - I refuse responsibility :-). So please tell me whom to ask..

 

> But do cut point 6 :-)  

 

 

As I wrote it originally this point was not mainly about asking the IGF to
initiate the process (which though can be considered). But since IGF has the
mandate to kind of look at WSIS principles being observed etc, I see it as a
forum to ask questions about unfulfilled mandates from the WSIS, especially
when the mandate is given to the UN secretary general to initiate the
process by a very specifically given date, and IGF is in advisory position
to the UN SC. Why should the question of an unfulfilled mandate not be
asked? Or is it the view that either globally applicable public policy
principles for the Internet are not required, or that the present system (if
there is any) is adequate to the purpose. I strongly believe that it is not.

 

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: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]

> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:45 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

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

> 

> We participate in IGF as equals.  It's a place for

> collaboration and

> discussion.

> 

> Why are you petitioning anyone?

> 

> Petitioning seems to miss the whole point of IGF. It's

> Groundhog Day

> and we're at a WSIS prepcom?

> 

> Instead ask questions, make suggestions. Write them down now,

> send

> them to the secretariat.  Ask MAG members to give them to

> moderators

> of sessions (I promise to do what I can... with minimal

> editorial.

> But do cut point 6 :-)  Blog the comments and hope they are

> picked up

> as part of remote participation/"blogsphere".  etc.

> 

> Adam

> 

> (<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107048/>)

> 

> 

> 

> At 2:41 PM +0200 10/24/06, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> >Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto:

> >>Here is my attempt, based loosely on Parminder's draft but

> >>shortened and simplified and rephrased in the form of a

> petition.

> >>Comments,

> >

> >First of all, I don't like the "intimidating" style, with

> premises,

> >lists and capitalized words... I would do something less

> formal, for

> >example in the form of a letter. Something like: "We

> consider the

> >IGF as one... and express... We are committed to... .

> However, we

> >are concerned that..."

> >

> >As for the substance:

> >

> >>TO the Secretary-General of the United Nations

> >>AND TO the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum

> (IGF)

> >>

> >>CONSIDERING the IGF as one of the most important outcomes

> of the

> >>WSIS process, which promises to be an innovation in the

> arena of

> >>global governance;

> >>

> >>EXPRESSING our strong appreciation for the value that the

> IGF

> >>brings to global policy arena and for the work of the

> Secretariat

> >>and the Advisory Group to date;

> >>

> >>AND COMMITTED to our to full cooperation with an IGF

> process that

> >>embodies multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and

> >>transparent principles;

> >>

> >>BUT CONCERNED that these principles not be left behind in

> the

> >>unavoidable haste of all parties to convene and

> successfully

> >>conclude the IGF's inaugural meeting in Athens;

> >>

> >>WE THE UNDERSIGNED hereby call upon the Secretary-General

> of the

> >>United Nations to request the Secretariat of the Internet

> >>Governance Forum to fulfil its mandate to convene the IGF

> as a

> >>forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue in an open and

> >>inclusive process by:

> >>

> >>1. AFFIRMING that the IGF as not merely an open space in

> which free

> >>discussion can take place,

> >

> >For what we see until now, it is not even that. "Free

> discussion"

> >means that any interested person can have a chance to talk,

> which is

> >not what is going to happen in Athens - not by anyone's

> fault, but

> >for the formula that was chosen. Let me give it a try:

> >

> >"The first instance of the IGF has apparently been conceived

> on the

> >model of an international conference, with pre-arranged

> panelists

> >instructing the audience on pre-defined themes, and limited

> >opportunities for participants to express their views, or to

> raise

> >other issues. While we appreciate the effort, we would like

> to

> >ensure that any stakeholder has sufficient opportunities to

> express

> >views, raise issues of concern, gather interest in them, and

> get

> >them addressed at the IGF or forwarded to the appropriate

> venue. In

> >other words, we would like to stress the importance of

> replacing

> >top-down organizational models with bottom-up procedures,

> where a

> >sufficient number of participants can put issues on the

> agenda and

> >start working on them."

> >

> >(too long?)

> >

> >>but rather a deliberative body whose legitimacy to occupy

> this role

> >>stems from its special character as a network of equal

> stakeholders.

> >

> >Rather than "deliberative" (that usually implies some power

> and

> >scares anti-regulatory people), I would say something like

> "We see

> >the IGF as a body that can promote and confirm consensus on

> >non-binding policy recommendations, as per part (g) of its

> mandate,

> >given the legitimacy stemming from the Tunis agreements and

> from its

> >special character as a network of equal stakeholders."

> >

> >>2. FACILITATING the development of structures and processes

> within

> >>the IGF within which for such deliberation to take place,

> and thus

> >>enabling the IGF to fulfil its mandate given in paragraph

> 72 of the

> >>Tunis Agenda, including sub-paragraphs (c), (e), (g) and

> (k), all

> >>of which clearly bespeak an strong element of agency on the

> part of

> >>the IGF.

> >>

> >>3. DEVELOPING in an open and collaborative process a

> structure of

> >>Working Groups for the IGF around important issues and

> areas, which

> >>would work on an ongoing basis, through virtual as well as

> >>face-to-face means, and would report and be accountable to

> the IGF

> >>at large.

> >>

> >>4. INCREASING the transparency and inclusiveness of IGF

> processes,

> >>including the release of information about the manner of

> Advisory

> >>Group selections, their processes and outcomes, and opening

> these

> >>processes to receive the input of all stakeholders.

> >

> >I would rather state a revolutionary (in the UN environment)

> but

> >very important principle: that civil society representatives

> in the

> >AG and any other groups should be self-selected by civil

> society

> >itself, under transparent and accountable procedures. I

> would add

> >that the IGC has chartered itself to ensure such procedures

> for what

> >pertains to its own participation.

> >

> >I would also add that we are dissatisfied with the very

> limited

> >representation of civil society (excluding the technical &

> academic

> >community, which was eventually treated as a fourth group

> and is

> >actually much better represented than us) in the current AG,

> only

> >4-5 individuals on 46. We should perhaps even say that we

> expect one

> >fourth of the group to come from CS.

> >

> >>5. CONSIDERING the need for provision for the travel

> expenses of

> >>members from developing counties and other disadvantaged

> groups

> >>wishing to participate effectively in IGF deliberations,

> and for

> >>ensuring that the contributions of remote participants are

> accorded

> >>equal weight and authority as those of participants present

> in

> >>person.

> >>

> >>6. INITIATING a process of enhanced cooperation for

> development of

> >>globally-applicable principles on public policy issues, as

> called

> >>for by  paragraphs 69, 70 and 71 of the Tunis Agenda, to be

> >>conducted within the framework of the IGF.

> >>

> >>Sincerely submitted by the undersigned,

> >

> >In the overall, I think it's a good petition. But I'd like

> to

> >understand whether there's consensus on it - even if, I

> guess, we

> >could get a lot of signatories during the meeting

> (especially if we

> >don't make it too radical) and thus we should deliver it on

> the last

> >day.

> >--

> >vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a]

> bertola.eu.org]<-----

> >http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

> >____________________________________________________________

> >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

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> 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/20061024/708679f4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061024/708679f4/attachment.txt>