[governance] DMP} Re: Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil

[Norbert Bollow]

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> So we are not actually making a statement, we are words-mithing our
> sign on to a statement, and adding a language requirement to our sign
> on?

As long as the only change request to the statement text that came out
of what I've called a "stumbling forward" process in Bali was the
request to add something about the language issue, I thought that
doing a sign-on with mention of an additional point would meet the need.

But we can also draft an entirely new statement. Or edit the text of
the sign-on statement in any way we wish.

> I have some issues with the following 2 bullet points:
> 
> "A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the
> future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event,
> and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate."
> 
> Why would we as CS want to link a fully inclusive process (IGF) to a
> non-inclusive process?

The intended meaning (I say that on the basis of the oral drafting
history - I was in the room when this terribly unclear language came
into existence) of that bullet point is that the "it" should be taken
as referring to "the event".

So the bullet is not intended to be read as talking about linking IGF
and WGEC.

Rather, this bullet point is intended to say two things:

1. In regard to the future Internet governance arrangements: A
strengthened IGF could be part of those arrangements.

2. The Brazil summit should not engage in uncoordinated duplication
of activities of the CSTD WGEC process.

(I will agree immediately with anyone who suggests that it would be
better to address these two things in two separate bullet points.)

> "The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of
> good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs."
> 
> Who would "action" these potential outputs and how?

I suppose this would very much depend on the topic of those outputs.

For example, for the "internationalization of ICANN" topic, I'd expect
ICANN itself to be the primary actor.

For a hypothetical topic of "public education on how to protect one's
privacy in email communication", the primary actors would be governments
(in their role as custodians of public education) as well as publishers
of educational resources, etc.

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