AW: [governance] Framework convention

[William Drake]

Hi,

On 4/21/07 12:09 PM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Bill,
> 
> I hope you will prepare this as a workshop proposal.  We don't know
> how that proposal process will work this year, but I would be
> surprised if it we're too much different from last.

Fine, I will.  But I need co-sponsors.
 
> I also think it might fit as an emerging issue in Internet governance
> (it's not been discussed before, but identified as important.) An
> "emerging issue" session will be tried again, but in what format is
> not yet clear (session structure and modalities should I think be
> discussed at the May consultation).  But discussion of governance
> mechanisms seems to me to be something that could be raised in that
> session, and could then link nicely to a workshop.

This would be logical, but it would require that there be greater
receptivity this time around to having institutional issues, aka the actual
practice of IG, addressed in the main program.
 
> Presenting issues broadly in the main sessions so they link to
> workshops where they're examined in more depth is the kind of
> feedback/advice we heard as desirable during stocktaking in February.
> Greater linkage between the main sessions and workshops, i.e. a more
> coherent/tighter agenda.
> 
> As for WSIS principles/enhanced cooperation.  Think the principles
> were far less of a last minute deal than whatever enhanced
> cooperation might be.  And they exist firmly in the mandate of the
> IGF (72/i) where enhanced cooperation is a separate process (or so it
> is argued.)

Sorry, perhaps my rushed sentence structure was confusing.  The parallel I
was drawing was with respect to actual political commitments to do what was
said, not when the two ideas were introduced or how often they were repeated
in the documents or referenced in the debates.  There's of course a
difference in that dimension.

Best,

Bill
 
> 
> At 10:33 AM +0200 4/21/07, William Drake wrote:
>> 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
> 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
  Graduate Institute for International Studies
  Geneva, Switzerland
http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html
***********************************************************



____________________________________________________________
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