[governance] .xxx. igc and igf

[William Drake]

Hi,

On 4/16/07 3:59 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Wolfgang:
>  
> I think Alejandro raises the right point. ICANN is like a pioneer, trying to
> explore new territory, finding its own role and pointing into directions where
> others have to take the lead to be active or where a "new beast" has to be
> created (always based on the principle of multistakholderism and open and
> transparent processes). My problems with the "Framework Convention" (a
> tradtional intergovernmental treaty) are the same like Alejandro. It creates a
> box and the history tells us that some people will start to fill the box with
> something that the creators of  such a box had not in mind. This is top down.
 
I agree with Wolfgang and Alejandro.  Tackling IG through a meta-convention
would be a very modernist response to a postmodern condition, like trying to
depict in a single point perspective painting a reality that can only be
visualized with a hologram.  IG broadly defined is too heterogeneous and
institutionally distributed for a singular negotiated framework, and any
overarching principles, norms, etc. applicable across mechanisms would be
too generic to be of much value-added.  Conversely, focusing on IG narrowly
defined around core resources would be simply become the oversight debate
redux and lead into the same cul de sac.  There's also the antecedent
problem that key parties would be opposed to even discussing this for fear
they would lose control of the dialogue.  And even if their opposition to
discussing it could be overcome, there's little likelihood of actually
reaching a meaningful agreement.  Even a ³soft² law regime agreement would
be enormously difficult---the WSIS conflicts on steroids.  Multi-issue
multi-player multi-preference negotiations frequently is not a formula for
consequential agreements.  Plus, where would you do it, there's no
appropriate forum for such a negotiation, much less an appropriate mechanism
to monitor and promote compliance with commitments.  Personally, I think
this is a chimera and a distraction.  Alejandro's right, given the lay of
the land, it's better to address specific issues through functionally
specific mechanisms.  Where I think he and I might disagree is that I'd
favor having some means of holistic monitoring/analysis that'd draw
attention to the connections and possible conflicts between these so
adjustments could be made etc.  That was part of the original thinking
behind the forum concept, at least for some of us, but if the forum can't
play this role something else is needed.

Cheers,

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