[governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation

[Eric Dierker]

I always get nervous when a debate or dialogue turns to criticism of anyone who 
criticizes. There is no point in objecting to a stated need for improvements. 
And as we see here it is self perpetuating. As someone could conceivably object 
to my objection of A's objection, to B's objection about objections.




________________________________
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Izumi AIZU 
<iza at anr.org>
Sent: Wed, November 24, 2010 2:59:18 PM
Subject: RE: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation

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?

--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/20101125/4e513d8e/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