[governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal

[Parminder]

I will try some reconciliation between Vittorio's and Bill's drafts

 

I think there is a good degree of congruence expect for the first
(substantial) para in Vittorio's draft. 

 

To quote

 

>>> First of all, 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.

 

I understand the motivation behind it - but we are back to - shd it be a
more (and more) open conference kind of a thing, or should be more focused,
purposeful body which is able to carry out the tasks we list for it (in
subsequent paras). I think though both aspects are important, there is some
'structural' trade-off here. If we make this (as above) our first point, it
takes the edge off our effort to speak about IGF's capacity to do many of
things we want it to do. In any case, our working group/ dynamic coalitions
point makes for processes of inclusion. I don't think just being able to get
up in a big noisy room and speaking out to one's heart's content adds much.
Structuring participation and inclusiveness is a better approach - which we
are doing by asking for more openness in MAG etc processes, and putting up
WG like structures. 

 

 

If we leave this para out - rest of the Vittorio's draft and Bill's are not
too different. 

 

Para beginning 'Ultimately, we see the IGF." corresponds to Bill's point 1.
para beginning 'We suggest the IGF to develop." corresponds to Bill's point
3, and paras beginning 'we see.' and 'we strive..' can be pulled together
with Bill's point 2.

 

So if Vittorio and Bill can do a quick round, privately, on putting out an
agreed draft covering these 3 points, we may be close to agreement. The
prefaces etc can also be agreed to.

 

 

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: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch]

> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 2:04 PM

> To: Governance

> Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal

> 

> Hi,

> 

> It's Wednesday and IGF attendees are presumably traveling

> Saturday-Sunday,

> so the time frame is very short.  If the 50 + people who

> signed the caucus

> charter want to agree a caucus statement we'll have to move

> pretty quickly

> to get rough consensus or do a vote.  At present the response

> level to the

> various proposals doesn't seem promising...

> 

> If full caucus action is impossible, another option might be

> to do a sign-on

> as "members of the caucus" rather than the caucus per se.  We

> went this

> route with the text on CS inclusion I inserted into the ITU's

> WSIS follow-up

> meeting earlier in the year, which worked well.  Either way,

> it'd be good to

> hear from people what they want to do, if anything.

> 

> Two quick replies to the responses that did come in (thanks):

> 

> > From: Jeremy Shtern <jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca>

> 

> > Para 73 c of the "Tunis Agenda for the Information Society"

> reads:

> >

> > "... IGF meetings, in principle, may be held in parallel

> with major

> > relevant UN conferences, /inter alia/, to use logistical

> support."

> >

> > Unless there is something UN going on in parallel this year

> in Athens,

> > or next year in Rio that I am unaware of (very possible),

> this 'may'

> > seems to be turning into a 'will not'. I think the absence

> of the

> > ability to draw on existing logistical support ties in to

> some of the

> > stuff we are already raising in this declaration about the

> problems of

> > capacity for participation.

> 

> I take your point.  But while the IGF secretariat is a tiny

> operation and

> undoubtedly could use more logistical support, this also ties

> into the

> question of the IGF's independence.  You may recall that at

> Tunis, Russia

> unilaterally held up agreement on the TA until the last

> minute by

> successfully demanding that lots of references to the ITU's

> competence and

> potentially leading contributions to the IGF be inserted into

> the text (the

> Russian rep being the head of the ITU WSIS WG etc).  The

> nominally anodyne

> language on UN logistical support can be viewed in this

> context.  Before and

> after the agreement, there was a lot of public and private

> discussion about

> whether the IGF might simply fall into that orbit, inter alia

> due to lack of

> the political and financial support needed to stay up

> independently.  This

> is part of why the caucus made statements in PrepCom 3 and at

> Tunis to the

> effect that the IGF should have the institutional capacity to

> function

> independently and should not be tied to any existing agency.

> It is arguably

> preferable that we are not holding the IGF as an addendum to

> the ITU

> Plenipotentiary in Antalya with all the same participants

> etc.  If ITU

> members want to create an ITU-I division that's their

> business, but IGF is

> an alternative and more open space.  (Conversely, if the IGF

> doesn't work

> out, even more governmental action will default to the ITU---

> a point to

> which some early opponents of an IGF seemed oblivious.  As it

> is, you should

> see some of the proposals for Antalya...).

> 

> > From: Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>

> 

> > Just two points.  First, I have an issue with the whole

> "dynamic

> > coalitions" idea, because it is easy for a powerful

> oligopoly to exclude

> > other willing stakeholders from a dynamic coalition, and

> difficult to

> > ensure that it is in any way accountable or transparent in

> its

> > functioning.  I much prefer the idea of relatively formal

> working groups

> > which can be required to report to the IGF, to adhere to

> consensus

> > principles, and to be inclusive of any willing

> participants.

> > So I would simply delete the words "any dynamic coalitions

> or

> > informal"; it may be just a change of nomenclature, but I

> think no less

> > powerful for that.

> >

> 'Dynamic coalitions' is ugly but the semi-official

> formulation because some

> governments get crazy at the idea of working groups.  When I

> used the latter

> term at the last IGF consultation your government in

> particular said in no

> uncertain terms that they could not accept formal WGs (nobody

> in CS ever

> argued for formalized groups, but such distinctions get lost

> amidst tooth

> gnashing about 'slippery slopes' etc).  Not clear there'd be

> much to gain by

> restarting a nomenclature battle here when we're already

> pushing on more

> important and sensitive spots...?

> 

> > Second, in lieu of it being a petition, perhaps you could

> include in

> > there a reference to how many members of the IGC there are?

> Though that

> > is an open question, I realise.

> 

> What would be the strategic benefit of publicly announcing

> how small we are?

> 

> > Either way, don't let these small niggles hold this up

> being

> > finalised/formalised if others seriously disagree.

> >

> > Finally, can we stick this up at igcaucus.org (even if it

> has a "DRAFT"

> > label on it)?

> 

> Well, Vittorio hasn't indicated that he's withdrawn the

> language he's

> proposed, so you can't replace that with this.  You could

> post them both as

> options a and b or something if you like.

> 

> Best,

> 

> Bill

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> 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/20061025/1e9f9621/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061025/1e9f9621/attachment.txt>