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

[Ian Peter]

Just so my position is clear I am happy with the ³may suffer² compromise, or
alternatively with Bill¹s text. But as others are clearly opposed to Bill¹s
text and it won¹t pass consensus, I  will not oppose  ³may suffer². The
question now is whether inclusion with ³may suffer² will be accepted in a
consensus statement or whether the whole paragraph should be dropped. My
reading is the paragraph should be in the text unless a a significant number
of people oppose it.

What say ye? Do we include or not include the following paragraph

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 may suffer in the long term if 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.
 


On 16/07/09 3:33 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Comments below. 
> 
> Jeremy Malcolm 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 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.
>>  
> 
> I completely agree. and also am firmly of the opinion that this part may not
> be diluted any further than the compromise "may suffer" that Jeremy has
> offered.
> 
> I am not sure about the other side's position, and the firmness of it. Ian did
> agree earlier to the 'non-binding' part - and to the whole statement as it
> stands. Bill strongly suggested that it is not really so much his view
> (correct me if I am wrong but that is what I read from his email) but  that of
> some significant others. Now who are these hidden others who do not want to
> step up and share their views. And if they do not care to, IGC statement can
> go without their views. The basis of IGC's positions is deliberation based
> consensus, and if people do not want to submit to this then it is entirely
> their choice. 
> 
> Ironical that we, through the suggested alternative text, are asking for a
> discussion on the subject (with a highly prejudiced language used in such
> asking)  when we our selves in the IGC are not ready to discuss it. We have
> put forward a good number of arguments for more specific outcomes from the IGF
> and havent received a response. parminder
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090716/d18705ff/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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