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

[Natasha Primo]

Hi All,

I had to consult previous APC statements and my colleagues on this as  
we've taken different positions on this issue in the past ...  
depending on what we regarded as a more strategic intervention.

With respect to this statement, we go with Bill's text   (for the  
reasons outlined in the text.)

Thanks!
Natasha




On 16 Jul 2009, at 10:52 AM, Ian Peter wrote:

> 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 “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
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ 
\//\\//\/
Natasha Primo
National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative
Association for Progressive Communications
Johannesburg, South Africa
Tel/Fax: +27118372122
Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090716/9d7bd90e/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