[governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas)
Lee McKnight
LMcKnigh at syr.edu
Fri Jun 8 10:36:12 EDT 2007
Oops, my mistake, too much travel and too hasty on hitting send.
But my read stays the same...
Lee
Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 6/8/2007 4:27 AM >>>
Lee
Think, you addressed your email below to me by mistake. I didn't post
the
IGF emails, Guru did :)
Well, I, like Guru, have had access to these emails for a few days
now,
since they have been discussed in some e-groups. But I wasn't sure
what to
do with them because I know there are people who hurry to a
'conspiracy
against ICANN' kind of alarm very easily (even when other disclosures
of
official docs like the Condeleezza Rice's letter to European
governments on
WSIS stand vis a vis IG are considered important in public interest.
See
http://i-policy.typepad.com/informationpolicy/2005/12/read_the_letter.html
). And as IGC co-coordinator even informal rules of closed
interactions
seemed more important than they need to against imperatives of public
interest disclosures, which in the present case I think are
overwhelming...
Looks like Guru thought it necessary to come in, in reference to
'ICANN
threats' in Willie's and Bill's emails and share these mails in this
list.
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: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 7:55 AM
> To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some
ideas)
>
> Parminder,
>
> I read this the opposite way, actually: it's a good sign if people
are
> making real or implicit threats about what the IGF may or may not do,
it
> means it matters to them. Not bad for a 1 year old!
>
> And yeah in politics it all comes down to budgets, so discussing
that
> isn;t brazen, it's basic. Marcus is using this to say to others:
'how
> about coming up with $$ for IGF too if you disagree?" which is just
what
> he should do.
>
> Lee
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
> >>> guru at itforchange.net 6/7/2007 12:05 PM >>>
> Excerpt from BD mail below -
> "I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring
to?
> My
> sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this
> could
> be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand."
>
> I thought this 'threat' was fairly well known ... See the attached
mail
> from
> a MAG member suggesting that ".... There is a grave danger that
> financial
> support and general involvement of non government participants will
be
> withdrawn...."
>
> This mail has been circulating in some elists that I am a member of,
> and I
> thought it a matter of great interest for the IGC ...
>
> Though the mail is part of MAG's processes, by sending a formal
> communication, quoting outputs from a meeting of some MAG members,
to
> Nitin
> Desai and Martin Kummer (to which Kummer gave a fitting response,
also
> attached) qualifies for putting it in the public domain. I think
that
> this
> serves the best interests of accountability, transparency and
people's
> right
> to know.
>
> I feel sad that the mere act of broadening the discussions to
include
> the
> agenda proposals of other stakeholders is resulting in such threats.
> The
> traditional' powers that be' apparently don't want democratisation
of
> the IG
> space. Such a brazen use of the lever of financial support to
> influence
> substantive agenda of a global public policy body is a matter of
grave
> concern, on which I hope IGC will take some position.
>
> If these mails or their contents are not factually true, I would
stand
> corrected, would be glad to get a confirmation/rebuttal on this
count.
>
>
> Regards,
> Guru
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch]
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:59 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some
> ideas)
>
> Hi,
>
> A couple of points on Willie's "Gramsci does IG" post...
>
> On 6/1/07 12:50 AM, "wcurrie at apc.org" <wcurrie at apc.org> wrote:
>
> > I wonder in reading the discussion how the notion of 'hegemony'
might
>
> > come into play here. The response to the counter-hegemonic thrust
of
>
> > civil society activism in WGIG, in the WSIS was to win a position
> that
> > no single government should have pre-eminence in IG. This
conclusion
>
> > was accompanied by four
>
> FWIW, while there are bits that can be attributed to CS, most
notably
> the
> forum, I would attribute that 'win' to the G77 and EU. We echoed
but
> were
> not the main voice.
>
> Snip
>
> > consultations in Geneva. It appears that critical internet
resources
>
> > will be accepted as a theme for discussion in Rio. A veiled threat
of
>
> > the withdrawl of funding for the IGF is made from the ranks of the
> > hegemonic bloc. (I should point out that I am using the notion of
> > hegemonic bloc as a descriptive term to indicate where power lies
in
>
> > the arena of internet governance and not in any pejorative way - as
a
>
> > simple statement of fact, if you will) A number
>
> I didn't hear this threat at the meeting. What are you referring
to?
> My
> sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this
> could
> be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand.
>
> > of questions arise from this scenario:
>
> 1. why don't the developing countries
> > arguing for critical internet resources put their money where
there
> > mouth is and put some real financial resources into the IGF
> > secretariat so it can get the job done properly and see off the
> threat
> > of withdrawal of funds from the
>
> This has been a big problem from the start. IGF is a classic
unfunded
> mandate. Governments voted to create it and then looked at their
shoes
> when
> the bowl was passed around. I suppose the host countries have
> excuses,
> they'll be laying out cash to hold the meetings, but if more of the
> others
> had each given even a pittance, in the aggregate the secretariat
would
> not
> be operating on a shoe string and looking for love in what some here
> regard
> as the all the wrong places. With only the Swiss, Dutch and
> Norwegians
> ponying up, the significance of the contributions from ICANN and
other
> technical and administrative orgs is naturally amplified. Then the
> governments that didn't pay complain about that. Frankly, if
> contributions
> were to reflect service rendered, it's the US that should have been
> paying.
> Without the IGF, the headline from Tunis would have been, "UN summit
> breaks
> down in acrimony over US control." Instead the US got to declare
that
> everything's great, we love the IGF, and then walk away.
>
> > hegemonic bloc.
>
> 2. Why do the developing countries taking up the issue of
> > critical internet resources have such a poor sense of strategy
that
> > their interventions simply amount to waving a red flag at a bull.
> They
> > don't spell out what particular aspect of critical internet
resources
>
> > they wish to address and there are quite a few to choose from such
as
>
> > the whois debate. As a result the hegemonic bloc correctly reads
> their
> > proposal as yet another attempt to get control of ICANN and acts
> > accordingly to neutralise it. Subtlety and
>
> Snip
>
> Strongly agree that the developing country strategy, at least as
it's
> been
> expressed publicly (not quite unanimously), has sounded too backward
> looking. Revisiting "oversight" will not get us anywhere. At the
> same
> time, the forward looking items IGC has raised, like the growing
role
> of the
> GAC, are presumably not their main bones of contention. I'd think a
> better
> option would be to support a Development Agenda focus that looks at
how
> the
> respective bodies (emphatically, not just ICANN) do or don't promote
> development substantively and procedurally, but then I'm biased.
>
> > some sort of outcome that could be contained in a 'message'?
>
> I propose we
> > adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN SG
outlining
> it
> > cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should move on to consider the
> > substantive
>
> I'm not comfortable yet with the fourth stakeholder category, think
> this
> merits more discussion. While in principle I agree with John that
IGO
> secretariats often have a measure of relative autonomy from state
> interests
> (consider the ITU's positions on IG under Utsumi, in the face of
> strong
> opposition from the US---Toure appears to have U-turned), in
practice
> the
> reality in orgs relevant to IG is more variable. For example, the
> WTO,
> WIPO, OECD and others almost invariably support the US agenda, or
else
> whatever compromises between the US and EU may be needed. Moreover,
> which
> IGOs exactly would be considered the relative polity to be
represented,
> and
> are their roles/stakes comparable to other orgs from the
> technical/admin
> environment?
>
> > issues and how we might engage with Brazil (and probably South
Africa
>
> > and
> > India) about the shortcomings of their strategy and the need to
> > distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy war with the US, with Canada
and
>
> > perhaps other OECD countries as potential allies and with the IGF
> > secretariat about issues of substance. We could write formal
letters
>
> > to the governments we think we should engage. We could propose
that
> > Brazil appoint a civil society liasion for the Rio iGF asap. And
we
>
> > should communicate formally with BASIS on these issues includng
> > Bertrand's proposal.. A communication with ICANN may also be
> > worthwhile on the issue of how to address the critical internet
> resource
> issue in a reasonable manner.
>
> There is only a month to get this together and given
> > how long the IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to
waste.
>
> Willie
>
> > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> Yeses to the above, with the caveat that all this would require a
level
> of a
> higher level of consensus and speed than we've managed in a long
while.
> But
> as Gramsci said, pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will. Of
> course, he
> was in prison when he wrote this..
>
> Cheers,
>
> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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