[governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius

Wed Feb 3 09:03:48 EST 2010

Bill,

Get to work and give Ginger a draft paragraph for people to pick apart. Please.

My 2 cents: both the development agenda however phrased and 'open internet' (+/- NN ; ) are logical and meaningful main themes for IGF 5, we should not shy away from backing them now.

________________________________________
From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 8:55 AM
To: gpaque at gmail.com
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim
Subject: Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius

Hi Ginger,

Wouldn't it make sense to try to get some sense of consensus first on topics before trying to wordsmith their descriptions?  It seems clear there's a good chunk of people who'd like to propose NN again, but I'm not clear that the same is true with respect to IG4D.

BTW I just took a quick peek at our Hyderabad statement on main sessions http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 which called for NN and DA, and I believe there were prior statements endorsing a DA as well, but most of our stuff is not on the site and my IGC folder going back to 03 is a mess.  Sometime after the OC it'd be great if we could  consolidate on the site from the list archive, Adam's old site, etc... would be useful.

On another note, the manager at Les Brasseurs just wrote to say they can't reserve the whole room for us as we're only @ 14 people and they're always packed.  Is a half a room and shouting at each other through the noise ok, or do you want to consider another venue?  Please let me know ASAP.

Bill

On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

Thanks Bill,
Could you propose an alternate paragraph? I think we should try to get a concrete phrasing for consensus with the whole IGC (hopefully) reading the possibilities before we get to Geneva.

We have many experts here on the list who will not be in Geneva. It is important for you to give us your input now, so that those of us who are in Geneva can properly represent the IGC. Even if you do not consider yourself an "expert", your experience and opinion count. Only by hearing from you, can we know what the IGC position is.

Please post your ideas -- preferably with a proposed paragraph -- as soon as possible.

Thanks! Best, Ginger

William Drake wrote:

McTim, et al,

On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:40 AM, McTim wrote:

[snip]

1. We tried Rights and DA for IG already and failed.

With regard to the latter, it's true that the caucus has in the past done statements calling for a main session on the notion of a development agenda, and that this hasn't been taken up.  There are undoubtedly a number of reasons for this, including inter alia a) varying perceptions of the DAs that have been pursued in other international policy settings, e.g. WIPO; b) concerns or just lack of a clear view about what a DA might mean in the IG context; c) a + b + the idea arose outside MAG and lacked sufficient internal champions; and so on.

However, the situation has changed.  At the May 09 OC Markus and Nitin mentioned several times that people have raised the connections between IG and development and said it might be ripe for a main session.  And in Sharm there were various expressions of interest in the possibility.  For example, in the WSIS Principles session I talked a bit about the DA workshop I'd organized, and Bill Graham in summarizing the discussion took favorable note of the conceptual progress made across this and the prior workshops I did at Hyderabad and Rio.  In the Taking Stock session I suggested a main session on IG4D (to which Sha made a favorable remark in reply), others also raised development as a cross-cutting theme that deserves more visible attention (e.g. Heather, Parminder, Willie, Fouad...even the USG), and if memory serves Nitin raised it in the closing.  So I think Parminder's right that the clouds have been seeded and there's reasonably wide interest in there being a main session
 of some sort on IG4D, if not necessarily the DA framing.  Insofar as the IGC has advocated this and members have pushed the concept forward in various ways, it would be a rather odd moment for us to back off and not express continued interest in making it happen.  Walking away from an argument you're winning is generally an unusual strategy.

2. Your formulation of a DA for IG  found here:

The concept of a DA is one that can be taken in a number of different directions.  Parminder sees an integral link to the negotiation of a Framework Convention.  APC has also advocated a DA (and I believe, a FC...foggy memory).  My view is that posing a DA as necessarily involving some sort of meta-negotiations, particularly of a FC, is premature and a conversation stopper; what I've argued for in the first instance is a holistic framework of analysis and dialogue on the links between global IG processes and outcomes on the one hand and development on the other that would identify good practices and such that could be taken up in decision making forums.  Those of us who are interested in this can and should debate the options further, the point here is that it doesn't make sense for you to fix on one way of thinking about the whole terrain and on that basis say no, bad idea.

What I would suggest is that the IGC adopt a text advocating a more broadly framed main session on IG4D—what if anything does the term mean, what are the linkages between global IG and development with respect to core resources and other issue areas, how might one take the conversation forward.  In that context, the DA concept can be mentioned as a way of moving beyond identifying links toward doing something, with what that something may be posed as a point on which there are various perspectives.  This would hopefully avoid arousing undue concerns that would prevent the core concept of IG4D getting a hearing, without precluding the possibility of exploring DA visions in that broader context.

Best,

Bill

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html<http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>
***********************************************************

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************

____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t