[governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance

[Norbert Bollow]

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> Norbert,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > On the pad, someone is suggesting to change
> >
> > "1) Internationalisation of ICANN and IANA: The Global Meeting
> > should aim at develping a concrete solution how the desired
> > internationalization can be achieved."
> >
> > to
> >
> > "1) Internationalisation of ICANN and IANA: The Global Meeting
> > should aim at developing a number of possible solutions on how this
> > desired internationalization can be achieved."
> >
> >
> > I'd like to request the author of this change to explain the
> > reasoning behind it.
> 
> Have I violated your anti-american orthodoxy?

If my message came across as anti-american or otherwise harsh, I'd like
to assure you that nothing of the sort was intended.

I remember Fadi saying pretty clearly in Bali something along the
lines of a key purpose of next year's event in Brazil being to decide
on a solution for the need to internationalize ICANN.

The Brazilian government was also very clear that they envisioned the
event as one where decisions would be taken.

Now whether that is realistic is a different question. In particular
I have significant concerns that the timeline may be too tight for the
kind of preparatory process that is necessary for reaching a
legitimate decision at the Brazil event, one that would clearly get
the necessary kind of broad acceptance also among non-participants of
the event.

Also it is true that the more recent official announcements have been
more cautious than what was said in Bali. Clearly expectation
management is being practiced in order to ensure that it will be
possible to declare the event a big success even if the original
ambitions are not realized. 

Nevertheless, I would suggest that the default starting point for
continuing the conversations that were started in Bali should be what
was said in Bali. If we make an IGC statement in which we disagree with
the original stated purpose for the event, we should state why. If we
don't disagree with the objective on grounds of principle but on
grounds of process (such as the timeframe being too short, and/or not
enough of the key people being likely to be able to effectively
participate during the Brazil event, or for any other similar kind of
reason) we should explain how that original objective can still be
reached, for example by means of a follow-up process leading to a
Decision-Making Global Multistakeholder Meeting in 2016 or whatever.

In any case, these IMO are matters that IGC needs to discuss before
putting out a statement that goes against what was said in Bali.

Greetings,
Norbert

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