[governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

[Avri Doria]

On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:59, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> [with IGC Coordinator hat on]
> 
> As the deadline for raising issues has now passed, no new issues will
> be added to the below list of issues under consideration unless I have
> made a mistake and overlooked an issue that was actually raised before
> the deadline.
> 
> Here is my current list of issues that we need to resolve (the one
> that has been closed already by the last update remove already)...
> 
> In the following, quotation indicates the parts of the issues list that
> have remained unchanged since the last update.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
>> The decision process is going to be:
>> - Where no specific textual change suggestion is made, the current
>> text of our statement remains unchanged in that regard.
>> - If for any of the proposed resolutions given below, no-one objects,
>>  the text of our statement is adjusted accordingly.
>> - If for one of the proposed resolutions given below, someone objects 
>>  to the proposed resolution, and also no other resolution is
>>  proposed in a timely manner, while no-one explicitly objects to the
>>  current draft text, the current text of our statement remains
>>  unchanged in that regard.
>> - If for any particular point, we end up having objections to all
>>  resolutions that have been put forward by the deadline for proposing
>>  improved resolutions, and also an objection to the current draft
>> text regarding that point, as a last resort all text regard that point
>>  will be deleted from the statement. (If we had enough time, we could
>>  try to do a determination of rough consensus as allowed by the
>>  charter, but I think it's pretty clear that there isn't going to be
>>  enough time to do that in a reasonable manner.)
>> 
>> 
>> All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 1
>> ===========
>> Current text: "Here are the concerns and suggestions of the Civil
>> Society Internet Governance Caucus on IGF themes and format and the
>> way forward:"
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "I suggest that a paragragh be added about how
>> these comments were developed in a bottom-up manner. i.e a few words
>> on the process that was followed."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no such additional paragraph
>> will be added.
>> 

Norbert, you have frequently writen about your process.  extract a few of your sentence.  something like:

Co-cos put out a call, we have a common doc that allowed for comments by the paragraph, we had list discussions. we went  through a repeat process of calling for consensus, we had  last call for members only, the co-cos called consensus, we were done.

>> 
>> Paragraph 2
>> ===========
>> Current text: "A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on
>> IGF Improvements"
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "I think it is appropriate to talk about
>> addressing, but I do not think that the CSTD WG improvements should be
>> seen as commands. they are something that should be reviewed by the
>> IGF particiipants and those that get bottom-up support should be
>> implemented."
> 
> Parminder replied: "“Review by IGF’ looks a good thing to speak of, but
> how doe sthis review happen — by MAG appointed panelists with their
> ‘recs’ going back to MAG to ‘consider’….. We are into very sticky
> territory here…. It is dangerous to seek subversion of all processes –
> CSTD WG was a multistakeholder process that adopted recs with
> consensus. I dont understand why and how does now MAG want to become
> the bigeest authourity in gobal IG of course in the name of the
> undefinable mass called the IGF, and purporting to be speaking for it."

As I recommended.  MAG needs to recommend implementation of any of these so-called multistakeholder recommendations.  To do this they first subject it to multistakeholder review by calling for open comment byt the IGF body politic.

> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.

Insert: 

Before MAG  implements of any of the CSTD WG recommendations, we recommend that they first subject it to multistakeholder review by calling for open comment by the IGF body politic.

>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 3
>> ===========
>> Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>> of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and
>> form. It is time to do what it really needed to do."
>> 
>> McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
>> does it “really need to do”?"
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
>> resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>> of."
>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 4
>> ===========
>> Current text: "Especially the following recommendations of the WG on
>> IGF Improvements should be implemented immediately:"
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "I do not beleive the recommendations from the WG
>> on IGF should be implemented unless the bottom-up process of IGF
>> itself aproves the implementation of these. the MAG should review
>> them and should put out a call for consultations. After that
>> consultation, then the MAG should decide on what to implement and
>> what not to implement."
>> 
>> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "I'm very uncomfortable
>> about thereby effectively giving the MAG authority to decide which of
>> the recommendations of the CSTD WG should be implemented."
> 
> Parminder replied: "THis change suggested by Avri is completely
> unacceptable… And it is a very very substantive point which in any case
> should first be discussed in the big group…. Who gives the right to the
> MAG to self appoint itself in a role of power, when no one gave it that
> power… This is something I beleive a group within the MAG is trying to
> do at present, and IGC’s statement cannot become an instrument to back
> this highly problematic move."
> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text. 
>> 

see the response above.

>> 
>> Paragraph 10
>> ============
>> Current text: "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
>> propose that the following policy question be taken up at the 2013
>> IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
>> principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
>> and institutions involved in this process?”
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "Why do we want to make an ill defined notion with
>> myriad different propaganda streams a major issue for the IGF. I do
>> not see it as a worthwhile direction for the IGF to take. We do not
>> agree on what NN means, how can it be a key architectural principle,
>> more that it already is?"
> 
> Parminder replied to Avri's comment: "Avri seem to agee that NN is a
> key architectural principle – that much agreement is enough. If we do
> not agree on what it means that is what we will like to thrash out at
> the IGF…. Outside narrow IG CS community obsessed with process issues,
> after FoE, NN is almost universally seen as ‘the’ key IG issue. (Wasnt
> ENTO proposal at WCIT, the main pre WCIT rallying point, also abut NN)"

I am fine with saying that we think the best effort network for all is the best idea..

> 
>> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "In my mind it is clear
>> enough what "net neutrality" means / should be understood to mean.

It is clear in everyones mind.  Just the images are completely different.


>> Some countries have passed NN legislation, in other countries such
>> legislation is proposed / under consideration. This would make this in
>> my eyes a key issue to be discussed at the IGF, and if indeed it is
>> not clear enough what NN means, it should be made a major objective to
>> develop a shared understanding."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.
>> 

"In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
propose that the following policy question 

be included as a workshop topic  for

2013
IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
and institutions involved in this process?”


>> 
>> Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
>> =============================
>> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "what does Meaningful mean? I do not see this as a
>> significant topic for the IGF. It is an introspective organizational
>> topic not one that affect the Interent directly. Why have we given up
>> on Human Rights as a general theme?"
> 
> Parminder replied: "I will like to stick with the proposed topic about
> ‘meaningful participation of all stkaeholders in IG’… Cant understand
> when almost every global IG document seem to focus on
> multistakeholerism, why the need to promote it as well as understand
> its full implications should not be the overall theme for a year."
> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.

"A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “

Human rights and its implications for Internet governance"


-----

to be continued...
-------------- 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