[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG

[Parminder]

Vittorio

I have responded to many points raised in your email in my response to
Bill...

> I
> tend to dislike suggestions that do not take reality into account.

Be assured, I am a very practical person and always take reality into
account :). But often just the set of realities people take into account are
different... 

I am not too sure about the
> first idea - it's true that those sessions are vast, but it's also true
> that there are many different participants with many different pet
> issues, and picking one over the others is not going to fly very well.

One can stay away form all structured forms whatsoever because any
structuring misrepresents the pure reality in its raw form. In politics
that's anarchy. So, if we want to be really fully open and inclusive we can
just invite people to IGF into a single space to generally discuss internet
related issues.. But we do think its better to structure things a bit which
leads to better outcomes... In that spirit, we are trying to pull together
topics which concern most people, as we understand it (and this can be
deliberated upon)... and not necessarily present perspectives on these
topics... You have  a right to take your choice (as you have done in your
latter email) and then we need to find what topics are best discussed in the
main sessions... But we cant abdicate by letting the session take place
around simple terms like access and openness, when we have the experience
that it goes nowhere... We are opening the topics up so that there could be
some focus, and some kind of output. Yes, there is some selectiveness
involved in this, but that's true of all political process. And it is fine
till we use due processes of reaching that selectiveness.  

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: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 1:32 PM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG
> 
> Parminder ha scritto:
> > About main sessions versus plenary - they are the same. IGC discussions
> used
> > the term plenary, and IGF secretariat uses 'main sessions'. So, to make
> it
> > clear we are looking for having main sessions on the lines of the four
> > themes we suggest, and NOT to have sessions on the inanely broad
> subjects
> > like access, openness, security etc. I have not been to any serious
> > deliberative space where they hold sessions on such broad terms. We are
> > asking the IGF to take its role as a space of public policy
> deliberations
> > seriously, since in any case it has abdicated a more active role of
> itself
> > analyzing issues, making recommendations, facilitating dialogue between
> > extant institutions etc.
> 
> Ok, I'm starting to understand better (though what you say is different
> from what Jeremy says, that he would like to have these sessions in
> addition). Bear with me for my pickiness, but I am an engineer and I
> tend to dislike suggestions that do not take reality into account.
> 
> However, I think that in this case we first need an introductory
> sentence that says something like "we think that rather having four
> broad sessions it would be better to have four focused ones on specific
> topics for each theme" (in your version) or "we think that in addition
> to the four broad sessions we would like to see more sessions focused on
> specific topics" (in Jeremy's). By the way, I am not too sure about the
> first idea - it's true that those sessions are vast, but it's also true
> that there are many different participants with many different pet
> issues, and picking one over the others is not going to fly very well.
> 
> Also, we'd better have good rationales ready for why, say, "access for
> disabled people" is more important than "interconnection costs" (to
> mention an issue from the same theme that lots of people will like to
> focus upon).
> 
> > These are serious failures in respect to a mandate that has been given
> to it
> > by a summit, and these failures have serious repercussions on the
> interests
> > on many people. I see no need for IGC to velvet glove this issue. I am
> > willing to go along to help IGF as a global governance innovation on
> some
> > teething issues... I think we did so the last time over. But if IGF's
> > governance structures are intent on re-inventing IGF as suits some
> vested
> > interests, I am not going along with it. As Carlos put it in a recent
> > email....there has been a ' gross manipulation in the Athens phase which
> we
> > hope will not be repeated in Rio', and later that ' We need to make a
> strong
> > point of what we want from the IGF. Enough of hiding crucial issues from
> the
> > main debates.'
> 
> I think that we should not talk by slogans and accusations. I think that
> the IGF should have a way to generate practical outcomes and I see that
> some parties have been trying to oppose that by all means, but
> attributing the lack of this capability to the overall bad faith of the
> people you are talking to won't make it easier for them to sympathize
> with your request.
> --
> vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------

____________________________________________________________
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