[governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius

[William Drake]

Hi

On Feb 4, 2010, at 7:06 AM, McTim wrote:

> 
> If we are to believe Bill's analysis (which I accept) then the time
> may be ripe for NN/Open Internet and DA.
> 
> He didn't say the the MAG/stakeholders were ready for HR to be
> included.  Have I missed smt Bill?

I was only addressing the development proposal since a) there's a contingent of us that have been advocating it for awhile without getting traction, b) it's central to the Tunis Agenda, and indeed the whole underlying political thrust of WSIS, and yet it's been set aside, c) there've been various expressions of openness or interest from important parties that suggest it could be accepted now, and d) particularly in light of b, it could appeal in particular to the developing country governments that have grumbled about IGF not addressing their issues sufficiently, and who will nevertheless be weighing in on the IGF's renewal.  The last point is of particular importance.  Everyone says we need to broaden and deepen developing country (government and other) engagement in and support for IGF but there's been insufficient effort to adjust the optics, much less the reality, in ways that might encourage this.  And I might add that more focused discussion along these lines might reopen possibilities for constructive dialogue between CS and DvC governments, which would be useful in various ways.  We had a couple meetings with the G77 and China four years ago to explore shared interests and options, but the channel went dark in the transition from WSIS to IGF for various reasons.

My suggestion yesterday was to go for a broader IG4D framing in the hope that this would be more palatable to more parties, since some may conflate the DA concept with just one of the conceptions of it, negotiations of a meta-framework, that they would find unappealing.  But as time is very short the path of least resistance is probably locally optimal, so why not go with Parminder's suggestion of reusing the statement language we previously agreed.  Hopefully the MAG will have an informed discussion of the full range of options that doesn't go off the rails with some parties fearing WSIS-II and opposing a development session on that basis.

As to the others, there might be some risk that the more main sessions we propose, the less focused consideration there will be of any one proposal.  I don't have enough sense of MAG's dynamics to judge, but hope not.  In any even there are sizable contingents supporting rights and NN, however defined, so I don't see how we could make everyone happy and get this done quickly without proposing all three using the previously consensual language.

Cheers,

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

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