[governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal [Revision]

[William Drake]

McTim,

> From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
 
>>  These are all critically important, value-adding functions that cannot be
>> performed by any other Internet governance mechanism.
> 
> I find this objectionable in the extreme.  The IG folks I have been
> involved with do most, if not all of the above.
> 
> The idea that you don't understand this is disturbing, but perhaps
> it's just rhetoric on your part. in any case, I don't think it
> necessary.

Equally disturbing is the idea that you would respond publicly in this
manner without first checking privately to make sure you understand what
you're actually reacting to.  Yet again (and again), you really need to stop
viewing every expression of concern by anyone about any aspect of IG as some
sort of thinly veiled attack on the technical and operational organizations
involved in standards and identifiers and the people who work in them.
Nothing like that was intended or implied, full stop. The statement does not
say that within their particular functional areas of activity, the people
you work with don't do make huge contributions to the net's development or
significant efforts to contribute to capacity building or anything else.  It
is dealing, per the IGF's original conception and mandate, with the whole
heterogeneous landscape of IG mechanisms and issues, including the
intergovernmental realm, and saying that there is no one body within that
landscape that performs the following functions with respect to IG AS A
WHOLE:

>  The Tunis Agenda specifies that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate
> discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international
> public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing
> body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other
> institutions on matters under their purview; facilitate the exchange of
> information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the
> expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; strengthen
> and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future
> Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing
> countries; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the
> relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make
> recommendations; contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in
> developing countries; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the
> embodiment of WSIS principles [e.g. transparency, multistakeholder
> participation, and a development orientation] in Internet governance
> processes. [emphasis added]

Which of the groups you imagine you are defending from attack is
facilitating discourse and information exchange on PUBLIC POLICIES between
the full constellation of intergovernmental and private bodies involved in
IG? Which is serving as an interface between intergovernmental organizations
on matters under THEIR purview?  Which is promoting and assessing, on an
ongoing basis, whether the full range of intergovernmental and private
bodies involved in IG undertakes decision making in a manner that is
transparent, accountable, inclusive, and development-oriented?

None of them.  They're doing other things, per their respective mandates and
constituent interests, and the statement is not saying they don't do those
things well.  It's operating at the systemic level,  not the level of
individual organizations or networks.  That's the IGF's unique mandate, and
the statement merely endorse the mandate and says fine, let's implement it.
The sentence, "These are all critically important, value-adding functions
that cannot be performed by any other Internet governance mechanism" needs
to be read in that specific context.  If you misunderstand the IGF's
mandate, then you'll misunderstand an endorsement of it.  If it would make
you feel better, we could specify further, "These are all critically
important, value-adding functions that cannot be performed for the Internet
governance arena as a whole by any one existing organization."  On the other
hand, if as you frequently seem to indicate, you think the IGF is just
useless BS in the first place, then I can't see why you'd care how exactly
the caucus frames another endorsement of it.

So would you like us to make the sentence above allude more clearly to the
mandate, or would you simply like the caucus to not endorse the mandate?

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