[governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please

[Parminder]

> Sorry, I'm still not following.  On what specific issues & institutions
> within that more general space are these pressing and unresolved
> questions people should fly to Rio to address: "do we need it, who does
> it and what is it"?

Bill, I have discussed in an earlier email that we need to take a position
somewhere in between 'access and openness' kind of issues, and asking for a
plenary exclusively on too narrow a topic/position like 'enhanced
cooperation' (is this, or such, your intention?). I have also mentioned
that, in my view, this may not be the stage for giving fully fleshed out
plenary proposals (there is no call for it) but to propose generally the
themes we may want to be taken up. In this session we can and should of
course discuss EC among other things. Details can be worked out later. 

You are welcome to comment on this line of thought. And give your take on
the issue. I myself have great reluctance to fly to Rio to hear about access
and openness, in the manner IGF plenaries are done. And I have indicated
that these are only indicative area, and we will further develop the
language on these topics. 

> I also don't understand the formulation, "EC, FC and all such concepts;"
> "such" implies equivalence, but these seem like apples and oranges to
> me.  And the apples would presumably be on the table in a session about
> ICANN, whereas the oranges are nowhere near being ripe and ready for
> mass consumption in a plenary.

When I speak of EC, FC and all such concepts' I mean various approaches that
have been spoken of to address the issue of global public policy (substance
and process) in IG arena. I am not sure I understand your apples and oranges
logic completely... but as I understand, the oranges logic is that EC is
only about public policy related to ICANN, but Tunis agenda doesn't seem to
suggest this (p 69 TA). Neither did I get this impression from majority of
discussions on this list.... 

And your oranges logic is even more difficult to understand. You seem to say
that there aren't any significant Internet related (non ICANN) public policy
issues at the global level, or at least not ripe enough to be discussed. We
spent a lot of time at WSIS to get such public policy issue recognized and
for the documents to make note of at least some space/ process for
addressing these issues (for instance p 61). Why are we now shy to speak of
them?? As I said, I am not able to get a good grip on your position. 

In any case, to pose a direct question, since at this stage we are more
interested in developing a common IG position - Do you NOT want a plenary on
IG related public policy issues/ mechanisms at IGF 2?


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: DRAKE William [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:23 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand
> advisory group meeting please
> 
> Hi Parminder,
> 
> Parminder wrote:
> >>Does the first one refer to public policy vis. names and numbers?  If
> so,
> >>perhaps the first two could be folded together.
> >
> >
> > No, it refers to the more general public policy space about Internet
> issues
> > that has been discussed often times on this list.. and of course
> including
> > names and numbers (EC, FC and all such concepts refer to this space)
> 
> Sorry, I'm still not following.  On what specific issues & institutions
> within that more general space are these pressing and unresolved
> questions people should fly to Rio to address: "do we need it, who does
> it and what is it"?
> 
> I also don't understand the formulation, "EC, FC and all such concepts;"
> "such" implies equivalence, but these seem like apples and oranges to
> me.  And the apples would presumably be on the table in a session about
> ICANN, whereas the oranges are nowhere near being ripe and ready for
> mass consumption in a plenary.
> 
> Maybe you could write some text clarifying what you're suggesting we
> propose here?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 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