[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG

Sun May 6 03:56:01 EDT 2007

My apologies for not being here for the last few days. Was caught up in
work, and was traveling in low connectivity areas...

Meanwhile, Milton, Bill and Adam, thanks for pushing this along. 

Adam, I have a few responses to your email.

While I agree with you can we should also address issues of form apart from
content, and specifically take up stuff from the IGF secretariat document, I
have a proposal - we should separate the key thematic agenda we propose from
the other stuff. I mean separate them for IGC's internal processes of
acceptance.... Otherwise we may get caught into too many loops... I will
make the precise proposal in a separate email.

Meanwhile, I will address the issue you have raised in the 'content' part -
whether the theme 2 should be 'ICANN and core internet resources' as present
or just 'core resources' as you suggest.

You seem to suggest that ICANN is a minor details of the 'core resources'
picture, and others seem to imply that the non-ICANN is a detail elaboration
of the main public policy issues in this realm that are today best
represented in ICANN's role and activities. (though no one denies that the
standard setting role played by many other agencies as having important
public policy aspects, but there seems to  be relatively less political/
policy controversy over these, at present)

Neither side is wrong. And what is important depends on whether one is
approaching the issue from a technical management side or public policy
side. The issue here is not what is inherently important, it is what has
important public policy implications, which rent people's minds today. (That
which has greater possibility for conflicts of interests between different
groups is what is more political, and therefore becomes more important form
a public policy angle) In this light, I can t agree with your observation
that

>The only people who
> care about individual participation in ICANN are
> a few of us on this list and a hand full of
> others.  

The view you take in this regard will depends on which people you spend time
with.... I think we need to understand the nature and rationale of IGF. If
it were enough that the present set determined Internet policies, we
wouldn't need WSIS and IGF. It is precisely because it was recognized that
Internet implicates everyone's interests, and with increasing intensity,
that these institutions came into being. And therefore the purpose of IGF is
to give those people who don't have access to present IG regimes greater
involvement. So, we need to take up and talk about issues that this 'greater
constituency' wants taken up - and name the issues in a manner they
understand. We have had a long discussion on this list about public policy
implications of .xxx issue, for instance. Now if you insist that the name of
the theme should be 'core resources' I think you should be expanding on what
public policy implications, as this 'greater constituency' will be
interested in, are implied by you. 

>It will be dismissed as "enhance
> cooperation", 

If it is 'enhanced cooperation' why should it be dismissed. Did not an
important set of issues which took up the 'enhanced cooperation' front,
important topics at WSIS, and which interested a lot of people. 

it's  gift for anyone who wants to
> make sure "critical Internet resources" are not
> discussed.

I think not mentioning ICANN in our theme will be a gift to some important
people who are shying from a discussion on ICANN - which is generally a good
indicator that a discussion is badly needed. 

>I think the response to (3) will be,
> "good, propose is as a workshop".

Do not understand why you say so. This theme is closest to a secretariat
'prescribed' theme - access. we are only clarifying what kind of discussion
on access fits the IGF space - its public policy/ institutions at the global
level aspects - which helps better outcomes.  

> About (4). I think this is extremely important.
> Can we propose the "Topical Issue" session become
> a session discussing the IGF mandate to see if
> it's  providing the right direction for the
> following years.  

It appears that the meaning that the secretariat document ascribes to
'topical' is very different. They speak of 'an issue that arose in recent
months' and give the example of the earthquake in the South China sea, and
that such an issue should be determined 2 months before IGf meeting... so I
don't think IGF mandate theme will fit there.

Thanks

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: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 11:58 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG
> 
> Milton, thanks for persevering with this.
> 
> I think the statement must also say what we do
> support -- what parts of the proposed program are
> we pleased to see (attempt to make a more
> coherent agenda, while still allowing open
> workshops and general "open call", better
> suggestions about duration of sessions?
> Multi-stakeholder principles reinforced.  etc.)
> 
> Do we agree with the basic "Basic Meeting
> Structure" (section 2 of the draft program).  Do
> we have anything to say about dynamic coalitions?
> 
> I would say yes to all of this section, except I
> think discussion of core resources must be the
> subject of a main session.
> 
> Are we OK with "3 Meeting Types"  (only thought
> is "best" practise must also include lessons
> learned, hearing about what not to do can be as
> valuable as people boosting their own work.)
> 
> I am not sure I understand "speed dialogue" but why not hear more about
> it.
> 
> "6. Content" seems to be what our statement focuses on.
> 
> I hope we can propose "core resources" as a main session.
> 
> I do not support the way we propose to address
> "critical Internet resources" at the moment:
> 
> 
> At 9:21 AM -0400 5/4/07, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources
> >
> >Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the
> >IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic  in
> >the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and
> >number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet
> >Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy
> >making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's  status
> >as an international organization, its representation of individual
> >users, and the changing role of the  GAC within ICANN should be
> >discussed.
> 
> 
> ICANN should not be the focus, too narrow a
> subject for a main session. The only people who
> care about individual participation in ICANN are
> a few of us on this list and a hand full of
> others.  It will be dismissed as "enhance
> cooperation", it's  gift for anyone who wants to
> make sure "critical Internet resources" are not
> discussed.  Would be naive to propose in this way.
> 
> If you want to make sure "critical Internet
> resources" is buried, this is the way to do it.
> 
> Suggest quoting the whole of 72 a in (1) of our statement.
> 
> Rest of the statement's fine.  Although seems
> overlapping. I think the response to (3) will be,
> "good, propose is as a workshop".
> 
> About (4). I think this is extremely important.
> Can we propose the "Topical Issue" session become
> a session discussing the IGF mandate to see if
> it's  providing the right direction for the
> following years.  Associated workshops would
> flesh out some of the items in 72 and bring them
> to the main session.  (Discussing topical issues
> might be interesting in workshops or could become
> part of best practise: what were the best ways to
> cope with Taiwan earth quake and cut cables...)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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