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

[McTim]

aplogies for my absence, still om holiday:

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Jeremy Malcolm<jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> 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 prefer Bills text as well.

>
> 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.

Perhaps it's just recognizing that in some cases, it may NOT be
appropriate to make recomendations!

  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?

One doesn't neccessarily lead from the other.

>
> 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",

I can live with that.

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.

umm ISOC is CS, just not the SYL wing.

  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.

If you want to be involved in Internet policy developmnet processes,
then I suggest you join som IETF orAPNIC lists rather than focus on
the IGF.

It seems I am one ofthe "slient majority" (Nixon's term IIRC) that
Parminder is curious about.   We are here, and it was polite for Bill
to speak for us.  Now I return to my sandcastles on the beach.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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