[governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas)
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Fri Jun 8 15:03:14 EDT 2007
> 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...
I am not sure I correctly interpret what you said in that sentence
above. If you meant to say that in this case public disclosure is more
important than respecting the chatham house rule, then I would like to
object. Personally I wantb to know if I say something on a private list
or in a public, archived space. If I cannot be sure that I speak on a
private list, I will behave as if I speak in a public place. It is
perfectly ok to object to or boycott private conversations on public
matters, I don't find ok at all to selectively broadcast compromising
emails.
For me the main difference between a public and a private discussion
space is the tolerance I can expect when I say something stupid. I think
twice before I express my opinion in this list here as I know I have to
expect criticism or something worse. A private list is supposed to be
protected space where ideas can be tested and where I don't expect
people using things against me. I didn't like Chris' email either but he
does deserve a fair treatment that would allow him, for example, to
change his mind.
jeanette
>
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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