[governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration

[parminder]

On Friday 21 October 2011 05:02 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
> This is a barrier I wish we could somehow overcome.  As long 
> as developing country intergovernmental efforts on EC and in the ITU 
> appear to have intergovernmental control as their end game and the IGF 
> is getting tactically linked to this as you noted, one imagines the 
> TC, business, and a lot of governments will remain wedded to the fear 
> that an IGF that does more than meet and chat once a year would 
> necessarily get leveraged to advance that agenda.  And CS proponents 
> of more intensive, structured and "outcome" oriented dialogues will 
> remain isolated and frustrated.  If intergovernmental control could be 
> taken off the table, at least outside the ITU, that might help to make 
> "IGF improvements" a less divisive topic.  So again, if indeed IBSA 
> has shifted, it'd be great for them to say so.  And for more 
> governments beyond Brazil and a distinct minority of other G77 to 
> demonstrate that they take the IGF process seriously and will engage 
> even if it doesn't offer a path to intergovernmental control.

This is another myth that a strong IGF will get used to pave the path to 
inter-governmental control, and such myths appear very easily when the 
agenda is to discredit developing countries. I will like to know how 
this is possible to be done. The IGF is inherently multistakeholder. And 
it is open, which means that it will always be crowded by those with 
better means, as we have seen it to be. With an IGF full of big 
delegations from developed counties, and so many other stakeholders, 
who, till now, have largely played as good allies of the developed 
countries, pray, how can a handful of developing countries pull out an 
inter-governmental rabbit out of the hat at the IGF... This is the 
height of convenient imagination.  It one just wants to run with the 
status quo, one can come with a thousand self serving explanations. 
Which new institutional model does not have one or other possible risk?

As Marilia suggests, with the meeting of WG on IGF improvements coming 
up, it is time for the civil society to stand up and say if they are for 
a stronger and more purposive IGF or not. My submission is that anyone 
not ready to make the necessary changes in the IGF status quo is the one 
really against multi-stakeholder policy making. And in this regard, the 
clearest proposals on the table for strong and specific changes to the 
IGF for strengthening it as a multistakeholder policy influencing body 
(other than the distracting humdrum kind of proposals, like 'lets 
improve the IGF website') are by IBSA countries (India proposal 
supported by others).

In fact, in forwarding such bold proposals for developing very 
significant channels of rather authoritative multistakeholder influence 
on global  Internet related policy making through an IGF with some 
teeth, it is the IBSA countries that are going out on one limb, beyond 
their traditional positions whereby they have been (too) cautious of the 
kind of geo-political imbalance that can be caused by an overwhelming 
presence of 'other stakeholders', that in their views have largely 
weighed in on the side of developed countries, especially in the IG arena.


Parminder





>
> Too much to hope for?
>
> Bill
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111024/7a0e297c/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