[governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits

[Parminder]

William Drake wrote:
> Hi again,
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> I'm not saying normative frameworks are bad, I'm all about normative 
> frameworks. I'm saying there are people here who believe the 
> negotiation of such frameworks in the IGF would harm the IGF.
It is often about the language used, which comes from the objectives we 
are putting such language in service of. You bought in the term 
'negotiations' which raises some heckles (though I am not entirely 
clear, why). I call it simply as development of commonly-agreed 
normative frameworks in areas we can do that, and keep trying in others. 
Simple.

You speak of possible harm, I speak of possible gains. How to decide 
which is more likely, and what is the nature of the trade off. I have 
listed the immense possibilities of possible gain. I am willing to 
listen to the possibilities of harm. We can then discuss the trade off. 
The parts of IGF dealing with open dialogue and those which try to 
evolve normative frameworks, the kinds i spoke about, can be kept 
structurally separate, whereby breakdown of one process doesnt effect 
the other part. Where is the possibility of harm then. That was exactly 
the direction that round-tables format, which has been aborted now, was 
seeking to take.

> I say that because they have, repeatedly, for years. It's not about 
> me, I was trying to reflect that the caucus is divided on the point, 
> and it seems like you're just restating your side of the debate rather 
> than acknowledging that others here have disagreed with it.
I am at least stating my side, you are not stating yours :) . You are 
saying it is because others have held so, but it is helpful if you tell 
your position, and of course certainly warn/ caution us about others 
positions. "Snooze and you loose' isnt fine. But beyond a point those 
who believe in one side of the argument or the other need to themselves 
come forward and make it. IGC needs to also move forward in its 
positions as the time moves forward.

parminder

> I don't understand how another round of that here and now helps us 
> move toward a text we can adopt by consensus.
>
> We cannot by consensus adopt a statement based on one side of a 
> polarized discussion that's gone on for four years. If you don't like 
> my effort at a compromise text acknowledging that different people 
> have different views, please draft another for collective consideration.
>>>
>> 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.
>
> Understood, I was just saying an open debate on recs would help negate 
> some of the junk that's been thrown at IGF before on this score.
>
> Really must do GNSO and other stuff now, hope someone has the time to 
> integrate a doc that has a chance of being adopted by consensus. Today 
> is the 15th, we can probably be a day or so late but not much more.
>
> 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