[governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation

[Izumi AIZU]

Milton and all,

The text I intrduced in the email is NOT our statement at all.

It was an exert from a private email from a government folk who has
been involved in the UN GA negotiations and given his permission I
sent to the list for purely informational reference only, not giving
any position of mine or ours.

Sorry for the confusion and hope this clarifies the question.

Izumi just arrived at Tokyo airport

2010/11/25, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>:
> 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
>>
>


-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
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