[governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Just because Nitin was clear does not mean that was a correct interpretation. And add far as I can tell he its no longer leading the effort or defining how we should interpret the TA.

It does indicate that he did not wish to take up that topic. And given the difficulty of setting up the IGF in the easily years, that was a reasonable pragmatic decision. I always found Nitin to be a very pragmatic leader, though I did not always agree with him, but as I was a member of the secretariat team at that time, it was not my place to argue with that interpretation then.  I am not a secretariat member now, and have not been one for over a year, I therefore no longer feel I need to argue from authority but can do my own exegesis.

And the fact that the IGF has not chosen to get into outcomes in the past does not mean that it should not do so in the future, especially if we take the CSTD report into account as well as what appears to be a new attitude in the new MAG. As the IGF matures it becomes capable of making recommendations and of establish other outcomes.  This its not the IGF of 2006.

I personally do not see any other reasonable interpretation of the progression  TA 67-72 despite the normal diplomatic ambiguity the TA is famous for.

67 calls for the creation of a forum
68 declares the equal role of governments and the cooperation of government with ail other stakeholders in the development of Internet public policy
69 calls for enhanced cooperation with governments having an equal footing
70 calls for the development of principles for policy development in cooperation relevant international organizations
71 calls for the UN to initiate a process involving all stakeholders and to report yearly on progress
72 gets into the nitty gritty of convening the forum it called for in para 67

So, the discussion of EC falls inside the discussion of the forum to be created. While it appears to be a specific project with its own yearly status reporting requirements, a separate mechanism is not defined. I believe that its because no separate mechanism or modality was required.  When the UN was originally confused about how to go about the process of EC, I believe it is because they were reading 69 outside of its proper context of 67-72.

So at this point instead of creating a new mechanism, with all the attendant birth pangs and time that this takes, we should instead start letting the IGF do the work it seems to me it was mandated to do.

avrI


Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

>In message <aba77ccf-26f3-49cf-8579-c0feb9e52540 at email.android.com>, at
>
>08:01:59 on Fri, 18 May 2012, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> writes
>>Without getting into the discussion over the merits of the marketing
>>campaign for Parminder's proposal, I  have to admit I just do not
>>understand how turning over a process that according to the agreed
>>langauge of the Tunis Agenda (paras 67-72) should be within IGF's
>>scope to the CSTD or some other government dominated body increases
>>democratization.
>
>Nitin was always very clear that EC and IGF were separate processes.
>
>The annual reports mentioned in para 71 have always been a matter for 
>the CSTD.
>
>The IGF has never been about producing a deliverable (an outcome), so
>is 
>surely not suited, nor intended, to fulfil the role of the process 
>mentioned in paragraph 70.
>-- 
>Roland Perry


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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