[governance] Proposal for the 23rd May IGF consultationand advisory group meeting please
Lee McKnight
LMcKnigh at syr.edu
Sat Apr 28 12:47:36 EDT 2007
My opinion is Parminder's on the right track with the 4 suggested
sessions.
How much specificity is needed at this stage versus the next is a
question, and I'd kind of assume we're talking largely, in generalities
at this stage.
Still, if Bill (or ?) could wordsmith the various paragraphs, that
might help.
Lee
Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> drake at hei.unige.ch 4/28/2007 4:59 AM >>>
Hi Parminder,
Thanks for taking the first step, it advances the conversation. It
seems
though the text below is all about the need to talk about global
public
policies as a general matter, rather than what global public policies
in
particular need to be talked about. I suspect that the mAG would need
more
to go on in thinking about the viability of such a session. Anyway,
this
shouldn't be a bilateral conversation, let's hear what others would
want to
have in a caucus input doc.
Re: your other message on the discussion process, no worries, on the
same
page.
Cheers,
BD
On 4/27/07 11:33 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> This is my suggestion for the 'Global public policy on Internet -
issues and
> institutions' plenary theme for IGF
>
> Internet as THE infrastructure of an emerging IS brings on both new
> challenges for global public policy making, as well as new
opportunities of
> managing a global polity. What are these public policy issues, which
are the
> right/ legitimate avenues for dealing with them, and how existing
global
> public policy bodies may need to change and/or new ones take shape
> constitute an important set of questions, for which IGF is the right
forum
> for discussion, and if possible moving towards a consensus.
"Discussing
> public policy issues" regarding IG is also the first point in the
mandate
> for IGF as per Tunis agenda'. TA deals at length with the question of
new
> global public policy issues regarding IG and the possibility of new
> frameworks and structures (and/or reinforcing existing ones)(p 61,
69), and
> there is a feeling/recognition that the task of both recognizing
these
> issues, and improvising global governance structures adequate to
dealing
> with them is an agenda that WSIS gave broad direction about, but left
it to
> post-WSIS processes to formalize. IGF was envisioned as a key forum
to
> enable/ assist this process (see for instance TA 72 b, that mandates
IGF to
> "facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different
cross-cutting
> international public policies regarding the Internet"). This panel
will
> examine these key issues/questions as well as specific institutional
> arrangements and processes like that of 'enhanced cooperation'.
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> 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
***********************************************************
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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list