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

[Parminder]

Bill

> Ok. if that's what you had in mind I would make it clearer you propose
> to talk about EC per se.  Of course, if you're suggesting this as a IGC
> proposal we'll need to get consensus on it.  If people here do agree,
> it'll still be a hard sell in the consultation and mAG, but worth a try...

Anything of substance and any real public policy issue (the main mandate of
IGF to discuss) apparently will be a hard sell with MAG. And if one goes on
to draw the implication that there is an attempt to make IGF what is was not
supposed to be, and thwarting efforts to make it do what it was supposed to
do, it draws comments about attributing motives to people and such..
Anyway..

About EC there is an active effort, also pointed to by McTim (an EC
taskforce) whereby whats happening at IGF itself is considered by some to be
THE EC. That can be one point of view, lets discuss it...

Now, even if this is THE EC, then why cant it be the one receiving annual
reports from the involved organizations as per para 77 of TA. (Who else
should receive it ?) This is somewhat like IGPs proposal on ICANN as the
shiftover mechanism from the US-ICANN JPA.  

JPA is one the most discussed issues in the IG public policy arena today.
And if one wants to move over from US govs oversight - which most global CS
people want - we cant examine the institutional form which will take its
place. 

The ALAC's draft response to NTIA on JPA says that "We suggest that in
preparation for the final transition of ICANN away from the JPA, an
institutional form should be found that ensures that ICANN does not lie
under the authority of any single national legislation."

In fact I wanted the plenary subject to be wider on what this possible
institutional form could be rather than specifically point to EC - so as to
not foreclose options. (EC would in any case have got discussed within this
framework). But you find it vaguely worded and I am unable to make it
clearer. So lets propose EC directly in the title, and any other options may
be discussed under this title.

Now, if IGF doesn't want to discuss these most important public policy
issues which seems to be on the mind of most people, than it is shirking its
responsibility, and it is the job of CS to tell it that. We will propose
what we think are the most important public policy issues right now, let
them reject these if they will. 

Parminder 






> -----Original Message-----
> From: DRAKE William [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 6:54 PM
> To: Governance List
> Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Parminder
> 
> Parminder wrote:
> > 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
> 
> Ok. if that's what you had in mind I would make it clearer you propose
> to talk about EC per se.  Of course, if you're suggesting this as a IGC
> proposal we'll need to get consensus on it.  If people here do agree,
> it'll still be a hard sell in the consultation and mAG, but worth a try...
> 
> A process suggestion: as more topics have been tossed into the pot
> piecemeal since you circulated your first draft statement, it's a little
> difficult to know just where we are. You might want to recirculate with
> with all the bits in one place and try to coordinate a structured
> discussion of each section sequentially.  If you wait and pull a rabbit
> out of your hat too close to the due date, things could fall apart with
> objections to part a, b, c...just a thought.
> >
> > 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 follow, but anyway in saying the IG forum should be about IG,I
> meant including the main sessions, which really have been more on
> general Internet issues than the actual conduct of collective governance
> vis those issues.  You've agreed with me on this prior so probably we're
> talking past each other here.
> >
> > 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.
> 
> I remember very clearly what they were about (?), and despite the
> development label on the program, as with IG, I did not actually hear
> much focused discussion about development per se in the main sessions,
> nor in most of the workshops I attended, which was part of why I did the
> development agenda ws.
> 
> Words are losing meaning in the IGF...
> 
> >
> >>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.
> 
> Fine, propose it in a manner everyone can grok and we'll see if there's
> consensus.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 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