[governance] Internet G8 meeting

[parminder]

Bill

On Wednesday 11 May 2011 09:43 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Parminder
>
>
>> In fact it is unfortunate how those opposed to strengthening the 
>> policy role of the IGF have linked IGF recs necessarily to UN style 
>> formal negotiations. Since there cannot be such negotiations at the 
>> IGF, there cant be recs by the IGF - their simple but deliberately 
>> fallacious logic.
>
> Yes there are a lot of actors who anticipate, based on WSIS and the 
> wider history of global governance, that reconciling highly diverse 
> views and preferences would require formal negotiations.  Aside from 
> hoping that working groups could do things in a more rational and 
> effective way, or proposing loose sense of the room messages, what 
> have we offered them in the way of other models to work with?  How 
> might one architect a collaborative process that sidestepped the kinds 
> of dynamics they fear?  I don't think we (IGC, CS) have really 
> contributed much out of the box thinking on this that would provide 
> much basis for concerned parties to unclench, and meanwhile whenever 
> governments speak to the matter they throw it back into the 
> intergovernmental negotiation frame, not so helpful.

India had a detailed proposal for such IGF outcomes at the CSTD WG, 
which was supported by most developing countries. And it not a throw 
back to an inter-gov negotiation framework. It is very much 
multistakeholder, with going into good detail on how multistakeholder 
participation should be structured to make it more representative. What 
are your views on that proposal.


> So we end up with polarization and immobility.  It's reminiscent of 
> the situation circa 1994 with the definition of IG, it took orthogonal 
> third way thinking from CS to uncork the thing.  We haven't done the 
> same on "outcomes."

Give us your take on it. Many of us have been trying to suggest ways to 
do it all these years. But if you think these attempts have not been 
good enough, why dont you suggest something. Esp since you seem to 
convey here that this is indeed an important thing to do.

>>> *
>>> *
>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from 
>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events 
>>> in which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not 
>>> been fully vetted with counterpart countries.  In this context, it'd 
>>> be surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being 
>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled.
>>
>> We think there will be, and we are afraid of that and are opposing 
>> their non-inclusive nature. As is suggested from your earlier 
>> examples of the Okinawa summit, these recs are likely to have a 
>> powerful influence on what gets decided and announced by the G 8 
>> meeting, which is likely to have a powerfu linflcuence on the future 
>> of global IG. I am not clear why does this not bother you.
>
> You'd be a lot clearer if you eschewed misreading things into what I 
> say.  I didn't say it doesn't bother me, it does.  All I said was 
> holding up IGF's dysfunctional non-decision making model as a solution 
> to the need for multistakeholder decision making seemed odd.

I said 'why doesnt it bother you' as a rhetoric. Ok, maybe 'does it not 
bother you' would have served the rhetoric purpose. But I am indeed 
amazed that if the IGF model is not even the right model for you for a 
policy consultative process, which eG8 is supposed to be, what is the 
IGF to you. I think most of us agree that it is not a policy making 
forum. Then what is its purpose/ function for you? A global conference 
on IG? A chat-space? Just curious to know.

Parminder


>>
>>>  And if so, then the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should 
>>> follow, no?
>>
>> We see IGF as a public participation/ consultation model for Internet 
>> policy making, and thus we think that its model should be used for 
>> all forums that are supposed to input public opinion (or that of all 
>> stakeholders) into formal policy making processes.
>
> Can't you separate the issues of participation rights and decision 
> making procedures?  IGF's great for the former, has bupkis for the latter.
>
> We're actually more or less on the same page, even if you refuse to 
> accept it…I just think we need to have serious discussions about 
> alternative decision making/consensus building modalities.  That's 
> part of why I'm doing workshops on institutional design and choice.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/d791f450/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/d791f450/attachment.png>
-------------- 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