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

[Carlos A. Afonso]

One phrase of Jeremy's description of the WTPF discussions is curious: 
"There is a CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation with 
multi-stakeholder participation, which could consider the issues raised 
in the opinion, but some member states objected that they are not 
participants in that Working Group."

What? This sounds like States (or anyone else) would block discussions 
in the WGEC because they are not there... states already trying to 
remote-control the WGEC?

As to the proposal itself, I agree with MM.

--c.a.

On 05/19/2013 05:41 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 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