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

[Parminder]

William Drake wrote:
> 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,
He said, ' I can live with that' to Jeremy's ' As a compromise I would 
accept changing "will suffer" to "may suffer" as the only direct comment 
on the text under discussion.
> and I'm opposed, on procedural more than substantive grounds.
Completely misses me.... Why dont you just tell what you want.  Can we 
just hear your views on the subject. Coordinators can decide the 
procedure. Franky, and I am sorry to be blunt, the following para really 
hasnt conveyed much to me at all. Basically, if I read it right, you are 
saying  that you  really have not  much problem in our seeking 
non-binding statement in the soft manner that the present draft seeks it 
- but, you have a problem that we are going ahead with adopting a text 
when some *other* people are opposed to it. Who??? We come back to the 
same question. Why cant you be clearer, Bill.

>  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.
Is there a panacea for anything anywhere. thats a  very weak argument 
which can be used against practically every act. Can we have something 
more solid please. This is holding up an important IGC statement.
>  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. 
No, there is no problem with holding one view or the other- who can be 
sure which one is more in public interest. But not to hold a view, and 
say i am doing it for others, which others not being clear - well,  yes, 
i do have some problem with it.

>
> How a statement saying caucus members have various views but all want 
> an open dialogue on the matter could be unacceptable is beyond me.
There has been a mail or two holding a somewhat different view on 
practically everything we have ever adopted as IGC statement. So then 
why not have every one of our statement say - some think so but others 
also think so - some what rights others are not so sure - some see IGF 
as a valuable organisation others do not, some want CIRs discussed 
others do not, ............ We will look like a really effective 
advocacy group, that we set ourselves out to be in our mandate.

parminder

>  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/20090716/9cfcf115/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