[governance] Should IGF negotiate recommendations? (Re: IGC

[Ian Peter]

Thanks Bill,

My read, given your message, and also the strongly opposing messages as
regards the text from Jeremy and Parminder, is that we should leave the text
out altogether. Unless someone has a good compromise to suggest in the next
hour or two before Ginger submits the final version for consensus.

I think its over now to Jeremy and Parminder and others who wont accept your
text as to whether a text such as yours calling for further discussion on
the issue is more acceptable than saying nothing at all. So let me now put
the question the other way ­ should Bills text be included or amended to be
acceptable, or do we say nothing about recommendations?



>>> "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."


On 16/07/09 6:16 PM, "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
wrote:

> Hi
> 
> On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> 
>>  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.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090716/2c150fb8/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