[governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Jan 28 23:52:45 EST 2011
Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> I have great respect for the outcomes of processes that produced the
> great documents you mentioned, but the IGF is not such a process. It
> is not a treaty conference, it is a forum for multistakeholder policy
> dialogue. I agree, it's purpose is clearly written in article 72 of
> Tunis Agenda. I'm all for implementing all of it, but not for turning
> the IGF into a binding process expressly excluded in article 77.
Yrjo/ All
I havent ever heard one person argue for turning IGF into a binding
process. It is simply a strawman that is then used to swing to the other
extreme - reducing the IGF to merely an annual conference, and thus my
direct question - how is the IGF different from any annual IG conference
that any private actor(s) can hold?
Earlier another bogey was used whenever a genuine discussion on the
present shortcomings of the IGF was sought as a necessary prelude to
coming up with the required improvements in the IGF. This bogey was that
if we even as much as mention any shortcoming, it will strengthen the
hands of those who want the IGF discontinued. (Strangely, this argument
was advanced by many actors who had opposed setting by the IGF in the
first place during the WSIS). Now that we know that IGF is indeed in no
danger of being discontinued, can we be more bold to discuss its current
shortcomings and under achievements to shape our recs for its improvements.
More than anyone else the proponents of MSism should recognise that they
cant play the game that it is either 'no tangible outcomes' or
'negotiated binding resolutions', when this binary simply doesnt
hold. If stakeholders are to be really an active part of policy shaping
process (a term used by Bertrand) it should be obvious that we will
need to put our belief in policy related documents that are concrete
enough to have influence, but less than binding policies themselves -
whether they are advisory notes, recs, reports on specific issues,
messages or whatever. It serves non-gov staekholder interests more than
anyone's else.
It is also rather puzzling how, when there are just two days left for
inputs to be given to the WGIGF, we in the IGC are so reticent to take
up any purposeful discussion on the central issue of IGF outcomes. Also
cant understand why was there such vociferous demands to get CS members
into the WGIGF when we seem to have little to contribute vis a vis the
central issues of the discussion and mandate of the WG.
Parminder
>
> Best,
>
> Yrjö
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:05:58 +0530
> From: parminder at itforchange.net
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations
>
>
>
> Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Over the years, the view has been expressed time and again that
> the main outcomes of the IGF are those impressions, new ideas and
> conclusions carried home by its individual participants, to be
> used by them as input on whatever other internet-related fora
> (decision-making or not) they are active.
>
> Yrjo
>
> How would that be different from any global IG conference that any
> private party can hold and many of them do get hled, from where the
> participatants take home whatever they choose or not to take home, Is
> then IGF just another global IG conference?
>
>
> I subscribe to this view. These thousands of individual outcomes
> are much more effective than a piece of paper, painfully
> negotiated before and and during the event, that nobody will read
> but that will be a proof that IGF achieved "results", for those
> bureaucrats and politicians who need something to put /ad actam/.
>
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and before that Magna
> Carta, or the constitution of India of of Finland may as well be
> considered painfully negotiated but largely useless pieces of paper.
> Your statement just bespeaks a distrust of politics and governance,
> and this is merely an one sided ideological position, contributing
> little of substance to the real debate.
>
>
> At the same time, it does not hurt to try to go a step further
> achieving conclusions at workshops and "messages" (as proposed
> by Wolfgang) from the IGF itself. But these efforts should not
> take time from the main purpose of the IGF.
>
>
> Who decides what is the main purpose of the IGF? I think it is written
> in the Tunis Agenda, as well as the recent UN General Assembly's
> directions to improve the IGF towards some specific purposes.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> Best,
>
> Yrjö
>
>
>
> > From: nb at bollow.ch <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> > Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:45:26 +0100
> > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations
> >
> > Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> >
> > > I have tried to argue for more outcome oriented workshops.
> They should
> > > define some form of a goal in their workshop proposal. Alas,
> outcome
> > > orientation is a cultural issue as well. Many people in the
> > > international sphere tend to think in procedural terms.
> Perhaps we are
> > > just a bit demanding in this respect?
> >
> > I think that it well-justified and quite necessary to be justly
> "a bit
> > demanding in this respect".
> >
> > For some activity to be meaningful, it will quite generally need to
> > have some kind of output that becomes input for something else. Of
> > course, some of the potential results from discussions are of a kind
> > that is not compatible with the idea of recording them in some kind
> > of formal "output" document, and that does not make those kinds of
> > informal outputs any less valuable.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>
> --
> PK
--
PK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110129/e25ccd94/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, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list