[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content

[Parminder]

> Given how you phrase this call, I have to point out that, personally, I
> find the most crucial issues for the future of the Internet at the
> crossings of IPR, consumer protection and antitrust efforts - including
> net neutrality - so, with all due respect to the four proposed themes
> (and support for their importance), I would not support a request that
> would imply that these other matters are not being discussed any more or
> are relegated to second tier.

I agree with you that ' crossings of IPR, consumer protection and antitrust
efforts' are mot important issues. Make a fleshed out main session theme
suggestion out of it and it should be considered by us for submission....

This said, how does improving the global public policy for Internet
structure NOT help the issues you consider important. I may even say that
more than anything else is what is most needed in this regard... Or
discussion on ICANN and core resources doesn't implicate these issues - I
have great concern about how they are implicated here and the manner in
which these issues are being dealt in this realm..

Or access and development agenda are not related issue - elaborating the
isses you speak of in specific contexts and details..

Or, coming back a full loop, what attitude IGF itself takes in making
progress on these issues isnt an important issue in itself impacting
strongly the things you want taken up...

I think that a good IGF structure would still envisage four main
> sessions (plus, I think, one for the cross-cutting issues and one for
> its own existential crises) and then deal with specific sub-themes
> either in workshops or in additional topical sessions.

In our proposal (which I explained further in the email to Bill) it is still
4 main session plus plus as you say.... so whats your issue here..

It's a matter of
> balance - of course you shouldn't be so vague that nothing specific
> comes out of it (as in Athens, even if a lot, in the end, came out
> through coalitions) but you shouldn't also be so narrow that most issues
> are disregarded.

These topics as suggested by us are not at all narrow, they are specific.
How is the Global internet policy - issues and institutions, a narrow issue
- it was the main point of discussion at WSIS. How is ICANN narrow, see the
time we spent on discussing it in the IGC, and see the time world spends on
it, how is development agenda in IG narrow, how is IGF's role and mandate a
narrow area..... I really don't understand, once again, what is it that you
are driving at.... 

> Apart from this, I think that putting out a request to discuss four and
> only four topics, of which one pertains to access, zero to openness,
> zero to security and zero to diversity, would make us look a bit out of
> sync. 

All topics pertain to all the subjects you mention... and I think it is easy
to see that. But as I said put out a specific fleshed out proposal which you
are able to argue as concerning most people today and therefore should go to
main session, and that will be considered for submission along with others.
For instance I do think we should be able to do with a good specific main
theme proposal on IPR, access to knowledge, public domain etc. But we went
with the four that came forward and had some degree of acceptance to start
with. 

In nutshell, are you suggesting that we go by the existing four themes -
access, diversity etc - in their present form of statement which is -
access, diversity etc - and not be more specific and pick up issues which
most people in the world look like wanting to speak and hear about...(ok,
that's my construction)


Ok, the draft schedule is a draft, but I don't see the IGF getting
> rid of the themed structure just because we put out a confused request
> to do so. If we want to get our issues discussed, we'd better be a bit
> smarter and in line with the flow.

It again that 'admit reality' 'be smart' thing.... well, wont say too much
on this,(this thing comes in often in advocacy circles) except that perhaps
different people are trying to do different things, and one's smart strategy
may look as fool-hardiness to other...

As for 'confused request' it again is your personal construction over it...
I am very clear about my request, and am ready to share any clarification...

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 1:59 PM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content
> 
> Parminder ha scritto:
> >
> > Hi All
> >
> > We are taking inputs on the four topic areas for the main sessions (open
> for
> > next 24 hours before consolidation),
> 
> Given how you phrase this call, I have to point out that, personally, I
> find the most crucial issues for the future of the Internet at the
> crossings of IPR, consumer protection and antitrust efforts - including
> net neutrality - so, with all due respect to the four proposed themes
> (and support for their importance), I would not support a request that
> would imply that these other matters are not being discussed any more or
> are relegated to second tier.
> 
> I think that a good IGF structure would still envisage four main
> sessions (plus, I think, one for the cross-cutting issues and one for
> its own existential crises) and then deal with specific sub-themes
> either in workshops or in additional topical sessions. It's a matter of
> balance - of course you shouldn't be so vague that nothing specific
> comes out of it (as in Athens, even if a lot, in the end, came out
> through coalitions) but you shouldn't also be so narrow that most issues
> are disregarded.
> 
> Apart from this, I think that putting out a request to discuss four and
> only four topics, of which one pertains to access, zero to openness,
> zero to security and zero to diversity, would make us look a bit out of
> sync. Ok, the draft schedule is a draft, but I don't see the IGF getting
> rid of the themed structure just because we put out a confused request
> to do so. If we want to get our issues discussed, we'd better be a bit
> smarter and in line with the flow.
> --
> 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