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

Fri Apr 27 06:30:42 EDT 2007

Hi Bill

>I'm simply asking you to do the same for
> global public policy so people would know what we'd be proposing.  I don't
> understand the resistance to doing so and how you expect to move the
> process
> absent this, and a long back and forth on whether it'd be useful to say
> what
> we mean is not a good use of anyone's time.

My reluctance to expand this point came from the fact that (1) this was
Milton's contribution, (2)my 'normal' ideas on the global public policy reg
Internet may be  a bit extreme for building a consensus in this group and
(3) I thought most people here agreed that there were non-ICANN kind of
public policy issues which are important, and when I saw you implying (as it
occurred to me) that most/the only significant public policy issues are
those around ICANN, I wasn't sure what you meant because in my understanding
I didn't think that was your position. So I inquired about it from you,
that's all. In any case the ICANN point and access points were themselves
not very much expanded at this point, and I was eager to gather other
people's suggestions. 

> I'm familiar with the TA, and am asking you to say what beyond names and
> numbers you would see as the global public policy issues/institutions on
> which the international community needs to discuss " do we need it, who
> does
> it and what is it," presumably because these questions are unresolved.  In
> reality, in a great many cases, they are not unresolved, they're known, so
> I
> can't imagine the mAG being enticed.  Again, if you can't identify what's
> in
> the set beyond names and numbers, people won't buy that it's worth doing,
> and if there's nothing and you're primarily thinking names and numbers,
> then
> I'd fold it in with your ICANN topic.

As for ICANN and public policy issues, I think it is important to see (and I
know, you do see) that most such issues like .xxx, geo tlds, trademarks and
DNs, may get highlighted in ICANN's context but their real nature is
different(.xxx - content regulation, geo-tld - national sovereignty,
cultural expression etc, trademark Dns - IPR), and their legitimate spaces
lie elsewhere (these may be existent, or require institutional innovations
or new institutions altogether). So I am unable to agree with you that a
discussion on  public policy issues and institutions can be bundled with the
ICANN plenary, though they will of course surface there in connection with
the prime issues at hand - ICANN primary technical role, its structural
adequacy for it, how well it has been doing the role, its
legitimate/illegitimate taking on of public policy roles, USG's role vis a
vis ICANN, ICANN's accountability and transparency processes, its
'internationalization' in terms of legal status, its interface with whatever
get identified as legitimate global internet public policy structures, and
so on......

This apparently is very different from discussing the nature of global
internet public policy, the issues involved, institutions involved,
institutional innovations required, current state of play about EC etc......

> Given the variety and length of conversations here in recent weeks, I
> don't
> think you can realistically expect anyone to remember everything you said
> at
> some point along the way, particularly if it was pretty broadly framed.

I have no expectations whatsoever. However, if I have made the exact point
in response to exactly the same query from you once earlier (email
enclosed), with my reply addressed to you, and your id marked separately,
the least I will do is to say that I did answer that query/objection before.
Don't you think that's only fair? So there is no need to call me
'unrealistic'. 

> No, I'm saying that a FC is not a ripe concept that people will agree to
> discuss.  Of course there are issues, but the number of people who think
> that it necessarily follows that we need to start with a FC, which as
> described thus far sounds qualitatively different from EC, seems rather
> small.

Our proposal for discussion of Internet public polity issues and
institutions has no dependence on the degree of acceptance of an FC kind of
thing. FC is a kind of concept for which a workshop will be a better forum.
A plenary will more likely give prominence to something like EC which has
much better recognition as well as WSIS legitimacy. However, at a plenary on
public policy issues and institutions, if the discussion on this list is
something to go by, someone may also broach FC kind of possibilities, in
their various possible shapes. 

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: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:04 PM
> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand
> advisory group meeting please
> 
> Hi Parminder,
> 
> On 4/26/07 6:56 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> Given the variety and length of conversations here in recent weeks, I
> don't
> think you can realistically expect anyone to remember everything you said
> at
> some point along the way, particularly if it was pretty broadly framed. If
> however you proposed concrete language on something, that I'd save and
> look
> back at.  I've said several times I this is very broad, I don't know what
> you have in mind, please clarify, and as that hasn't happened you cannot
> expect that people with very diverse opinions are going to all agree that
> yes, the caucus should say we want a plenary on a topic that's framed like
> a
> cloud.
> 
> You asked yesterday for more precise language on the mandate question, so
> I
> gave you a few sentences.  Milton's provided a few sentences on the access
> of disadvantaged people/groups.  I'm simply asking you to do the same for
> global public policy so people would know what we'd be proposing.  I don't
> understand the resistance to doing so and how you expect to move the
> process
> absent this, and a long back and forth on whether it'd be useful to say
> what
> we mean is not a good use of anyone's time.
> 
> >> 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....
> 
> I'm familiar with the TA, and am asking you to say what beyond names and
> numbers you would see as the global public policy issues/institutions on
> which the international community needs to discuss " do we need it, who
> does
> it and what is it," presumably because these questions are unresolved.  In
> reality, in a great many cases, they are not unresolved, they're known, so
> I
> can't imagine the mAG being enticed.  Again, if you can't identify what's
> in
> the set beyond names and numbers, people won't buy that it's worth doing,
> and if there's nothing and you're primarily thinking names and numbers,
> then
> I'd fold it in with your ICANN topic.
> 
> > 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
> 
> No, I'm saying that a FC is not a ripe concept that people will agree to
> discuss.  Of course there are issues, but the number of people who think
> that it necessarily follows that we need to start with a FC, which as
> described thus far sounds qualitatively different from EC, seems rather
> small.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> My position is please be clear, full stop.  Please don't misread anything
> else into it beyond that.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> If I know what it's about and it sounds important and worth doing, of
> course.  I suspect others would like to know this first, too.
> 
> Best,
> 
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultation and advisory group meeting please
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:38:58 +0530
Size: 44701
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070427/4dc9d357/attachment.eml>