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

[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?

I wont want Bill's text to go. It formally proposes an IGC position that 
the clear text on advise, recs etc in para 72 of TA may be disputed, 
open to review etc. I think  most views on this issue that are against 
the original 'non-binding' text have been sitting on the fence kind, but 
the idea that comes out of the Bill's text is that we perhaps seek 
reinterpretation of TA text on IGF. Also the text to me appears 
prejudiced towards being quite doubtful that recs etc are possible/ 
practical.

parminder
>
>
>
> >>> "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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090716/232113e3/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