[IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions

[Milton L Mueller]

Have had a chance to review Jeremy's proposal here: 
http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-opinions 

I am in complete support of its intentions, and support 98% of its proposed procedure. My only cavil regarding the proposal involves the use of the Brazilian proposal as the starting point of the deliberations, which I believe may (by serving as the default) bias the proceedings towards a "states are pre-eminent" position. Would it be possible to allow others to submit alternate proposals that would be considered with equal status? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto:irp-
> bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy
> Malcolm
> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:48 AM
> To: parminder
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;
> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal
> for IGF multistakeholder opinions
> 
> On 19/05/2013, at 1:01 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> > If it is about the Brazilian proposal, would you explain why do you
> find this particular issue is of such an outstanding significance over
> so many others.... I for one could never clearly understand the intent
> and significance of the Brazilian proposal, and I think different
> players are making different things of it. I dont see it as very
> significant thing and I am happy to let it die or disappear,  I prefer
> to discuss issues which have some clarity about them. Brazilian
> proposal, and its intent, and different people's take on it, simply do
> not make clear sense to me. Taking such a rather unclear issue to the
> IGF as the first test of IGF's recommendation making capacity to me
> doesnt sound as an exciting idea.  A good issue to test IGF's
> recommendation capacity will be such a one which everyone understands in
> the same way but people still have different views about it. And
> something which is really important. And Brazilian proposal seems to be
> as one of the worst candidates.
>   However, I am happy to be explained the meaning and significance of
> the Brazilian proposal.
> 
> 
> I think it is one of the best candidates precisely because it is
> relatively uncontentious, yet there is a strong momentum to continue to
> work on it and the IGF would be boosted by hosting that work.  Even ISOC
> and the United States indicated that they would probably support it
> although they would be proposing line-by-line amendments.  We got quite
> close to agreement on it at the WTPF, that it is a safe bet that all
> stakeholders can reach agreement on it, which could open the door to the
> IGF working on more contentious sets of principles in the future (though
> this first proposal is just couched as a one-off experiment).  Also I
> can't agree that it's unimportant; the principle of finding constructive
> ways to integrate governmental participation into a range of multi-
> stakeholder Internet governance processes is a worthy one.  Perhaps the
> wording can be further improved, though and this would be provide an
> opportunity to do that.
> 
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek host -t
> NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-
> bin/mailman/listinfo/irp

-------------- 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