[governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15)

[William Drake]

Hi

On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote:

> Just so my position is clear I am happy with the “may suffer”  
> compromise, or alternatively with Bill’s text. But as others are  
> clearly opposed to Bill’s text and it won’t pass consensus, I  will  
> not oppose  “may suffer”. The question now is whether inclusion with  
> “may suffer” 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.

Likewise, the text demanding recommendations won't pass consensus.   
McTim is opposed, and I'm opposed, on procedural more than substantive  
grounds.  Re: the latter, I'm not convinced that trying to negotiate  
(yes, that's what would be involved) recs necessarily would turn out  
to be disaster---it would depend on a whole bunch of unknowns about  
modalities and focus etc on which open dialogue would be needed to  
arrive at some clarity.  Equally, I'm not convinced that trying to  
negotiate recs necessarily would be a panacea for all that ails the  
IGF, or IG more generally.  But re: the former, I am definitely  
convinced that we cannot move forward via processes in which one side  
of a polarized discussion wins by sheer persistence, waving away the  
other side's views, implying that if people don't agree then they are  
spineless jellyfish unwilling to stand up for the public interest, etc.

How a statement saying caucus members have various views but all want  
an open dialogue on the matter could be unacceptable is beyond me.   
Even for people who want the IGF to be doing recs, I don't think  
insisting on this ex ante makes tactical sense.  Calling for an open  
dialogue on the matter would seem more likely to provide a lever to  
nudge things in the "right" direction (let's see who would stand up  
and oppose an open dialogue) than simply demanding something that many  
other key parties strongly oppose.

On Jul 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Parminder wrote:
>
> 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.

We have been talking about recommendations off and on for four years  
now.  Back when WGIG released its report in July 2005 I think we  
expressed cautious support for the idea of recs--indeed, those of us  
in the WGIG CS contingent were much involved in writing the text that  
morphed into the TA mandate---because at that point the IGF was an  
abstraction, and some of us certainly were hoping for a more  
substantial institutional formation in which it could have worked.   
But after IGF was established, basically as an annual conference,  
people's thinking evolved in different directions, and I don't recall  
(anyone else?) that we ever again expressed support for recs in the  
many caucus statements to follow.   I don't have time to go digging  
through the list archive, particularly since our subject lines are  
frequently not indicative of message content, but at various points  
along the way I believe that people like Wolfgang, Jeanette, and Adam  
have spoken against recs (don't want to put words in their mouths,  
they can please correct me if I'm wrong) and that others have as well.

That many people are for whatever reasons are not participating in  
this discussion does not mean we should just wave away their  
previously expressed stances.  As Parminder agreed, "you snooze you  
lose" is not a good basis for consensus decision making.  Of course,  
if those who opposed before now want to reverse and support rec  
negotiations, that would change things, but absent that it's not a  
consensus position in my view.

Best,

Bill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090716/e8ef56f8/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