[governance] Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 16/07/2009, at 9:22 AM, Ian Peter wrote:

>> 3)?? How to deal with--leave as is, remove??,
>> Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new
>> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce  
>> more
>> tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. 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.]
>>
>> or change to Bill's suggestion of:
>>
>> "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."
>
> Yes I like Bill's text

I don't like it at all I'm afraid (sorry Bill) - and I should also  
note that despite the highlighting of **NON-BINDING** above suggesting  
that this wording was a change, in fact it wasn't - it was in my  
original.

I'm not going to raise a fuss about the other compromises, but I think  
I have to stand my ground on this one.  First, it exaggerates the  
effect of the qualifier "where appropriate".  Those words cannot be  
used to detract from the mandate.  Raising even the possibility that  
it might *never* be appropriate to make recommendations, is  
effectively to abrogate paragraph 72(g) altogether.  Nobody has the  
authority to do that - and still less should civil society be  
suggesting it!  What could it possibly gain us to rule out the  
possibility that civil society could ever have real input into  
development of Internet public policy through a multi-stakeholder  
deliberative process?

If anything we should advocate for the *narrowest* possible  
interpretation of "where appropriate"; for example, to say that the  
qualifier is basically redundant - as even if there were no  
controversy about making policy recommendations in principle, there  
will always be particular issues on which it would not be appropriate  
to do so (perhaps the emerging issue is still evolving quickly).

My second objection is that the suggested replacement is far too  
limiting as it is not only pursuant to 72(g) on recommendations that  
the IGF could produce non-binding outputs.  A document might also need  
to be produced by the IGF in order to facilitate discourse between or  
to interface with other bodies, or to propose ways and means to  
accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the  
developing world, or to assess the embodiment of WSIS principles in  
Internet governance processes, or to find solutions to the issues  
arising from the use and misuse of the Internet... or indeed in almost  
any of the paragraphs of its mandate.

As a compromise I would accept changing "will suffer" to "may suffer",  
which waters it down to a similar extent as has been proposed for the  
other paragraphs accepted by Ian.  Beyond that though, this is looking  
less and less like a civil society statement and more like the kind of  
thing ISOC might put out.  Frankly as Parminder has observed, if the  
IGC doesn't have the guts to push for increased civil society input  
into Internet policy development processes, I'm not sure who will.   
The end result is that consumer voices will continue to be  
disempowered and sidelined in favour of the incumbent government and  
big business interests.

-- 
JEREMY MALCOLM
Project Coordinator
CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
for Asia Pacific and the Middle East	

Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Mob: +60 12 282 5895
Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
www.consumersinternational.org

Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global  
campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in  
115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer  
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more  
information, visit www.consumersinternational.org.

____________________________________________________________
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