[governance] .xxx. igc and igf

[William Drake]

MM,

On 4/17/07 10:29 AM, "Milton Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 
>>>> drake at hei.unige.ch 4/17/2007 3:32 AM >>>
>> 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.
> 
> I wish I could convey how amusing you all sound,
> lost in your metaphors of "new" kaleidoscopic realities. In the

Always happy to be part of the legions of folks who amuse you. Tickling the
lion is great fun, since one never knows what will ensue.

> meantime, the same old power holders, using the same old mechanisms and
> a few subtle new ones, are running the game. And some of us in civil
> society are soooooo easily co-opted by being invited onto consultative
> mechanisms like WGIG or ALAC that have no effect on the actual regime
> but somewhow make people feel important and thereby transform them into
> enthusiastic free workrs and sometimes apologists for the institutions
> that have duped them.
> 
>> IG broadly defined is too heterogeneous and
>> institutionally distributed for a singular negotiated framework, and
> any
> 
> No one said a FC is going to deal with any and every aspect of IG. The
> problem to be solved is the relationship between public policy issues
> and states. An FC can, and should, delegate or leave alone many things,

Oh, well that narrows it down.

> thereby helping to resolve many of the legitimacy and competing claims
> for authorty. 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> The only cul de sac is the intransigence of the USG, and we are going
> to have a new administration most likely.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> That is indeed a problem, but its a political problem and you don't
> solve it by conceding defeat off the bat. Political constraints are
> amenable to political agitation.

A bit Sisyphean for those of us who are less agitated, and meanwhile there
are may be other hills with smaller boulders worth pushing.
 
>> Multi-issue, multi-player multi-preference negotiations frequently is
> not 
>> a formula for consequential agreements.
> 
> This argyument has some validity, i.e. is a real source of concern, but
> can you say we have never developed an environmental framework....oops,
> I guess we did. Well, I guess that explains why the WTO was never able
> to negotiate a free trade agreement on telecomms and IT
> equipment...oops, I guess they did that, too. No, it is just a question
> of political will.

Actually these mechanisms are not comparably multidimensional and the
problems were specified in ways that were more tractable.
 
>>  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.
> 
> An FC creates one. This is not a real argument.

You must be joking.  Legally and politically it'd have to be launched under
some extant institutional auspices.  Look at the IGF's problems. Which do
you prefer, ITU or ECOSOC?
 
>> Personally, I think this is a chimera and a distraction.
> 
> That is my attitude toward the IGF, increasingly. Can you tell me why
> holding a conference and chatting with ourselves is such a brilliant
> solution, and what problem it is a solution to?

No I cannot, which speaks precisely to how such any such processes end up
after they get run through the wringer of power and divided interests.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> But that's what the Forum was supposed to do. And if the political will
> is not there to do something real about these governance issues, then
> the Forum can't work any more than a FC. So you are led back to the

Well, it depends on your definition of "work." The forum can still be useful
to the extent that dialogue, collective learning, and networking are useful.
Whether it can do more than that is obviously more than unclear.
 
> proposition that we must advocate some form of governance
> institution-building that is REAL, not a co-optation mechanism or a way
> of sidelining and neutralizing actual debate over substance.

I'm not sure why that follows.
 
>> 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.
> 
> In other words, you admit that the oh so sophisticated "post modern"
> approach has failed, but we should try it again?

The original concept wasn't tried a first time, but I'm talking about
something more streamlined, monitoring/analysis per the caucus' original
proposal.

Cheers,

BD


____________________________________________________________
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