AW: [governance] Framework convention

[William Drake]

Hi,

> Alejandro:
> 
> Not to speak of the once-held idea that there are a large number of
> organizations with a claim for relevance in Internet governance which do not
> comply with the WSIS criteria about which no-one has even started a discussion
> here.

Actually Alex, this is not true.  Maybe you weren't reading the list much at
the time, but I and a few others raised the issue a number of times here,
and if memory serves the caucus issued statements during and after WSIS
calling for for further work to assess both intergovernmental and private
sector governance mechanisms according to the criteria.  But there was
significant push back.  For example, when I gave a talk at an OECD meeting
and argued for a work program under IGF on this, I was told by the EU and
industry reps that, in effect, WSIS was over and nobody cares (on the other
hand, I said the same thing at an ITU reform meeting and didn't get the same
reaction; they at least now have a process looking at CS involvement, have
made the standards free, etc).  And when I wanted to propose a workshop on
this for Athens, I was strongly discouraged from doing so on the grounds
that it was too sensitive, all the relevant organizations and their key
constituencies would be unhappy, and hence the workshop would not be
approved (as it happened, all proposals were approved, so I guess I
shouldn't have listened).

I remain convinced that there's a need for analysis, dialogue, and
monitoring/reporting on the ways in which intergovernmental and private
sector governance mechanisms do (or don't) transparency and inclusive
participation, with an eye, at a minimum, to identifying generalizable good
practices.  In fact, as I argued in Parminder's FC workshop in Athens, this
is one area where I could imagine a FC being useful and doable.  Process is
easier to agree on than substance, at least in principle, and after all,
governments have already gone on record in WSIS saying that IG should always
be transparent and inclusive, so it's not like starting from scratch.  Who's
afraid of "good governance"?

 I'd like to do for Rio what mistakenly I didn't do for Athens, propose an
workshop that would flesh out the idea.  Would you support doing this?
Would ICANN?  I'd be happy to have co-sponsorship...
 
> Wolfgang:

[snip] 

> What can we learn and conclude from this, in particular with regad to IGF
> 2007? Shjuld we support the silence? Is there space for discussion? Any
> direction? 

Perhaps one could conclude that like the WSIS principles, the language on
enhanced cooperation was not a serious statement of intent on the part of
some key parties, but rather a way to cut a deal, end WSIS with a
declaration of nominal agreement, and go home and back to business as usual?
But also that as with the WSIS principles, the language can still offer
possibilities for normative pressuring to take seriously the outcomes of
three years of effort...

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