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

[Jeanette Hofmann]

>> Also, I wouldn't want recommendations to be installed from the top. I 
>> prefer an approach where workshops and groups come together around a 
>> specific issues, agree on recommendations and have other participants 
>> sign on to them. Such a bottom up approach may lead to forms of 
>> institutionalization that are more healthy and sustainable than 
>> initiatives from the top.
> The proposed text remains silent on the way recs can be developed 

My suggestion would be to let formal institutionalization follow a 
successful practice. We need to experiment with developing 
recommendations and building consensus bottom up before we ask the IGF 
to formally adopt this as a task.

Unfortunately, I don't recall the individuals who cautioned against 
recommendations but, like Bill, I remember that we never had consensus 
on this issue.

jeanette

- we
> all know this is a difficult path to chart, but we are only putting 
> forward over view that some such recs may increasingly be more important 
> to get from the IGF. So the text does no way go against your preferred 
> approach.
> 
> parminder
>>
>> The same is true for national or regional IGFs. I wouldn't want the 
>> MAG, or whowever, to plan and implement them. Such initiatives have to 
>> come from the regions themselves.
>>
>> While I can live with "may suffer" as a compromise, I certainly don't 
>> believe this to be true and therefore don't support it.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Parminder wrote:
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> I sent my last email without seeing this one.
>>>
>>> As I see we only have Bill opposing the 'text' and that too - and he 
>>> makes it explicit - on procedural ground. And the ground is that we 
>>> cannot adopt the text because there is some opposition to it - which 
>>> opposition, it is not clear. I think it is for the coordinators to 
>>> judge this fact whether there is any opposition. Bill himself 
>>> suggests the has no strong opposition (if at all) to the text on 
>>> substantive grounds.
>>>
>>> We have also earlier adopted by rough consensus.
>>>
>>>  In light of the above i am not sure on which basis the text is 
>>> being  rejected.
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>>
>>> 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