[governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF

[Eric Dierker]

Gentlemen,
 
Thank you for this frank exchange of factoids and opines. Jean your admiration of Parminders clarity is well reflected in your own.
 
Could either of you please link us to, or provide yourself, some further illumination of this ITU move into governance that is apart from standard setting in technical matters.
 
I have studied the checks and balance notion used by many prosperous current governments and have found that in Internet governance a very natural one has occured.  It would be my hope that it remains. That would be what I believe has kept ICANN in its' semblance of working order. (never intended - but eluded to by Postel, USC'96) The bicameral yin and yang nature of the Technical versus the political social. Ease of use or efficiency or domination should not be justification for the weakening of one or the other -- the conflict is natural and maintains balance.
 
As for GAID. We should never forget that while "aid" itself seems all good and innocuous, it is in fact and historically a tool for directing the aided in the direction desired by the aider and abettor.  It is important that we view this honestly and maintain vigilance and transparency and debate over appropriate attaching of strings. I am sure Mr. Khan would agree.

--- On Thu, 12/31/09, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> wrote:


From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr>
Subject: Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 12:48 PM


Dear Parminder

As usually your message clearifies the debate ; therefore all my thanks.

> concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ 
> discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general 
> assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the 
> process will go forward).

Isn't there another confusing situation with GAID as far as IG is dealing with Developing Countriers issues are concerned ? 
If this is the opinion of a majority among us, our relation with -and/or position on- GAID should be laid down accordingly.  

> many among us are focusing on just one thing - the 
> danger that ITU may take over the IGF

Right. That is just another point of concern for me. not only because I was working in the (far) past with this Un Agency. I do think that IG needs a strong framework as to be able to apply in any country. Per se ITU isn't qualified for "governance" matters, but it happens to be an intergovernmental body that has a world-wide competence and standardization authority in the ICT/telecom domain, whose circuitry the Internet relies on. That's why I wonder if CS shouldn't rather put its efforts to gain both its place and respect inside this agency. The IGC should also remember that a large part of the CS orgs committed in the WSIS follow-up -especially those working in or with DCs- are struggling for CS being given a plain "ITU member" status.      

> there could also be new 
> options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some 
> possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have 
> earlier alluded to.

Among these thematic working groups one should deal with some issues related to technical matters such as critical Internet resources, network architecture, network neutrality, etc 

With my best wishes for a happy and fruitful New Year
Jean-Louis Fullsack 




> Message du 31/12/09 10:20
> De : "Parminder" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF
> 
> 
> 
> Hi All
> 
> While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's position 
> on IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on the list 
> so that the coordinators can attempt a consensus position.
> 
> I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm, IGC failed 
> to provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones which we 
> have often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may still have 
> a chance of putting our views forward, now through the channel of 
> government reps that may be on the lookout for possible good concrete 
> suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ 
> discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general 
> assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the 
> process will go forward).
> 
> While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after Sharm I had 
> pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one thing - the 
> danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be 
> closed down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to 
> propose real improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is that if we 
> breathe but one word on possible improvements, it may be taken as 
> statement of failure of the IGF and be used by those keen on shutting 
> down the IGF, or seeking an ITU take over of it.
> 
> One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even 
> diversionary, can be found in the fact that recently a UN general 
> assembly resolution for more stable public/ UN funding for the IGF 
> (which some groups tend to equate with possible ITU takeover) was shot 
> down, and another one calling for more voluntary contributions to the 
> trust fund (status quoist) was adopted. One can clearly see here who 
> calls the shots and which way the wind is blowing.
> 
> So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF reform of the 
> kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be new 
> options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some 
> possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have 
> earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a 
> clearer role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it, 
> including of developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF 
> mandate based on the proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc. There 
> could be other possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and maybe 
> speak out at Feb meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch the ear 
> of some gov reps, and also pass our views on directly to interested gov 
> reps.
> 
> Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and fruitful 2010!
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


____________________________________________________________
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/20100101/c9cfc403/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