[governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main

[Parminder]

Bill

> I meant that the whole thing should be about IG, institutions and issues,
> which is entirely consistent with your sentence (although you may have a
> special reading of that language).  

I mean, well let me be blunt, we need to know whats happening about enhanced
cooperation (EC). Not only know, it is the right and the responsibility of
THE global Internet public policy forum ie IGF to discuss various options,
analyze advantages and disadvantages etc.  The greatest part of IG part of
TA is in fact a struggle to figure out the right way to say that the new
policy challenges in IG areas requires new responses and possibly new
insituional mechanisms. The EC language is a peg holder for these future
possibilities. 

Are we as IGC not interested in this area? Do we not want to debate, and
influence these processes, and ask questions. IGC already has once written
to UN SG's special advisor expressing concern about whats happening and not
happening on EC, and staking claim that CS should be there whenever anything
happens. CS main role in policy spaces is deliberative, providing new
options, asking questions, extracting accountability etc - we can do most of
them through IGF itself in context of EC (not that we shd not participate in
EC processes proper, whatever they may be).

Are we happy to let people forget, especially when an extra-ordinary number
is keen to forget, that there is something like EC, which is an attempt to
answer the Internet policy challenges at the global level? What is our
collective position on this. (At present I am going by the IGC position
expressed in the said letter.)

Does it not qualify as one of the key public policy issues that IGF is
supposed to discuss. A main session with appropriate workshops arranged
around it will be the appropriate forum for this. That what is being sought
here. But it can be more general survey of the entire global Internet policy
framework, or absence of it, or gaps in it, rather than just EC, a concept
no one really knows much about. 

As I understand 

Either

(1) there is no need, present or emerging, for global Internet public policy
mechanisms. I don't think this is our position.

Or
(2) existing global IG institutions already do all the public policy that is
needed. But I am often told - latest by McTim, that ICANN neither does
public policy nor is keen to do it. So, either we accept that there are gaps
in public policy regime here, or accept the point of another set of people
who do insist ICANN etc does public policy, and also mostly say that it is
an illegitimate exercise. 

Which makes it look we should be interesting in assessing, examining and
exploring the global Internet policy regime, exiting, emerging or potential,
as  a key public policy issue. That's what this main session will do.

> I meant that the whole thing should be about IG, institutions and issues,

As for the whole thing being about IG issues and institutions, we know that
the workshops happen the whole thing is not about them. And also that a
focused examination of EC and other specific insituional requirement issues
is at a different level. 


I don't understand your point on
> Athens
> Rio, there was no overarching theme, really.

Weren't development and capacity building cross-cutting themes for both
Athens, and Rio. I can understand if oyu do not remember, because that
really means nothing. But the fact was prominently displayed in all official
docs etc. 

> Sort of your pre-Rio formulation, a bit abstract as a main session rec.
> maybe specify what issues and institutions you're addressing?

That was Milton's formulation though I largely agreed with it. Does my
placing EC in the centre of the formulation make it clearer? A lot of people
- Wolfgang, McTim on this list, and some others like in the IGF workshop at
Delhi ICANN meeting are suggesting that EC is what is actually happening
right now at the IGF. Lets examine this perspective also. 

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:21 AM
> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main
> 
> 
> Parminder,
> 
> > In my view an over-arching theme means exactly nothing. Don't you think
> so,
> > with the experience of Athens and Rio. For instance, I heard no panelist
> in
> 
> I meant that the whole thing should be about IG, institutions and issues,
> which is entirely consistent with your sentence (although you may have a
> special reading of that language).  I don't understand your point on
> Athens
> Rio, there was no overarching theme, really.
> 
> > Yes, one should be development agenda in IG (Swiss and APC suggest WGs
> on
> > this), and one can be on assessing WSIS principles... but my suggestion
> of
> 
> More generally, it should be said that the Swiss paper is really very good
> from a CS standpoint----probably the best fit with CS positions on
> multiple
> points I've seen from any government since the WSIS IG debate began.
> OFCOM
> hits not just the development agenda (they co-sponsored the Rio WS) and
> WSIS
> principles ideas, but also WGs, upstream linking of workshops and main
> sessions, need for a multi-vocal outcome doc, public service
> considerations,
> plus pressing for funding commitments, clarification of enhanced
> cooperation...This on top of them making CS' case in ITU for us.  Shows
> that
> inter-species dialogue can be productive, worth remembering in drafting
> etc...
> 
> > assessing the global public policy landscape is different. It will
> assess
> > who makes or doesn't make what policy, what gaps remain (which are
> > acknowledged in TA, and I think we all agree there are major gaps, the
> ICANN
> > issue is also mainly bec of these gaps, if it were only doing tech
> functions
> > and not public policy functions we will have little problem with it),
> what
> > can be done abt these gaps, what was meant by enhanced cooperation, how
> is
> > it going or not going, what can be done about it etc...
> 
> Sort of your pre-Rio formulation, a bit abstract as a main session rec.
> maybe specify what issues and institutions you're addressing?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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