[governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits

[Parminder]

>
> I don't think advocates of recs mean long-term. How about we replace
>
>>> the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the
>>> long term it does not prove its value to the international community
>>> by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements
>>> on Internet public policy issues.
>
> With
>
> "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where 
> appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the 
> requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC 
> members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly 
> favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of 
> recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have 
> colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC believes 
> it is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing 
> multistakeholder dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever 
> could be appropriate and on the possible implications of such 
> negotiations for the IGF's unique character."
Bill

If in the same manner that all stakeholders in Norway could agree on a 
normative framework on Network Neutrality, if it were possible to be 
also done on the global level in an IGF setting (round-tables and 
further structural evolutions) what problem do you have with it? Or a 
normative framework on accessibility rights in the digital space. Or 
even a normative framework on how governments could cooperate on making 
legitimate globally applicable public policy principles. How does it 
compromise IGF's unique character.

If we dont give such structural and outcome evolutions even a chance, 
there simply cant happen. And if you oppose them simply because you know 
they cant happen then you can as well let us try our 'foolish ambitions' 
and you can always happily later say 'i told you so'. We keep on talking 
about IGF working through inter-sessional WGs, etc etc - what would all 
of it then amount to, if not some kind of concrete stuff on IG matters. 
The distinction between any such outcomes and soft recommendations is 
thin, and we need to explore which way can it best work out. But 
meanwhile we need to keep pushing IGF ahead away from institutional 
inertia that every institution falls into. That is the purpose of the text.

I repeat, IGF is the only place where any rec kind of outcome will have 
a big participation from civil society. How can be then we ourselves be 
against such a possibility which is otherwise a explicit part of the 
mandate.
>
> Or something like that...trying to reflect that we're divided but it'd 
> be good to get this issue out into the sunlight and clarify the 
> reasoning of the respective parties, rather than having it buried in 
> back channels. Let the proponents of each view make their case in an 
> open manner, respond to counter-views, etc. Consensus would be highly 
> unlikely (especially since IGF has no decision making procedures, or 
> members for that matter) but the process might be constructive if 
> handled right, and might help undermine the China/ITU argument that 
> since IGF doesn't do recs it's useless.
No, China's position has shifted. Now it is not that IGF is useless 
because it cannot recommend. China now does not want IGF to do 
recommendations or any such thing and is very wary of any such moves. 
Inter alia, it is because it thinks since IGF has a big CS component we 
can get rights kind of stuff into IG, and therefrore ITU is a much 
better bet. We may have missed this important shift. On the other hand, 
ITU too does'nt want IGF to make recommendations.

parminder
>
> 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