[governance] .xxx. igc and igf

[Parminder]

Bill

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

Would you then agree to the kind of analytical questions based agenda that I
had proposed as IGC's position for May consultation on IGF? 

Time is short and we need to begin developing our very interesting (and I
must say, mutually evolutionary) discussions into advocacy outputs in terms
of the immediate context that we face...

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: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:53 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf
> 
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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