[governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation

[Mawaki Chango]

Thanks Izumi for the reporting...

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Izumi
> I have a bit of trouble understanding your statements in this section:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were
> > secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
> > regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of
> > the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for
> > improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the original
> > text),
>
> Is it your position that the IGF is an unqualified success that needs no
> improvement?
> That is certainly not my position, or even the position of the many people
> within this caucus that I know and talk to.
>
> >"recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
> > of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
> > improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
> > modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These
> > several references to improvements in the text could for those with no
> > direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something
> > needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is
> > clearly not the case.
>
> I do not understand the need for such a defensive approach to the IGF.
> The idea that any criticism or drive for improvement means that it is
> inherently flawed seems to reproduce the kind of polarization we saw when
> ICANN was challenged during the WSIS process. There were those who believed
> - quite erroneously, it turned out -  that one must either defend it
> uncritically, or else one was supporting the ITU and a "UN takeover of the
> Internet." Those are false dichotomies and I see the same pattern being
> recreated here. Why?
>


Agreed.
Why? Isn't this how all constitutional moments eventually start an
ossification career towards a new set of vested interests?
This is a constant challenge. However it is a bit unsettling if we are to
reject calls for improvements only on the simple basis that they are asking
for improvements, and not because we do not agree that the substance of what
they are asking brings actual improvement.

mc.


>
> --MM
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/5559291b/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

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