[WSIS CS-Plenary] [governance] Progress, CS participation funding,and the civil society / business boundary line

[William Drake]

Hi,

The second point below may be of particular interest to people not in the
governance caucus.

Best,

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:wdrake at ictsd.ch]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 10:11 AM
To: ewan at intug.net; mueller at syr.edu; ajp at glocom.ac.jp;
governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: jeanette at wz-berlin.de
Subject: [governance] Progress, CS participation funding,and the civil
society / business boundary line


Hi Ewan,

Good to hear from you, didn't know you were here.  Just to clarify on your
second point, which I'm guessing is referring to my separate comments on
Mike Nelson's presentation rather than on the procedural issue, I don't
think I said that all business folks or others leaning more toward the
status quo are opposed to using the g-word.  There has indeed been some
notable shiftings on position in light of the WSIS process; even the US
government, for example, not only uses the phrase Internet governance but
explicitly construes it broadly to include a range of rule systems beyond
those pertaining to addressing.  For the DC policy mafia this is an
interesting mid-course adjustment, one that could entail both opportunities
(e.g. deflecting attention from ICANN) and risks (e.g. possible
strengthening of calls for rules on Internet interconnection pricing, spam,
etc).  So I agree progress, or at least change, is occurring.

I also certainly agree with you about money.  All these governments called
for the creation of the WG, but nobody but Switzerland has put up a dime
yet.  I don't think this is a simple collective action problem, with each
waiting on the other to move first or seeking to be a free rider.  It's hard
not to think there's more going on here of a strategic nature.  In any
event, to make it really clear, at present there is NO budget---none---set
aside to bring civil society members of the WG to meetings, whether in
Geneva or elsewhere.  The only funding at present is a bit of Swiss cash
earmarked for any participants from the least developed countries, which of
course could include CSO people as well.  This might be expandable to other
developing countries.  Unless more funds are forthcoming, CSO people from
the global North and perhaps mid-to upper GDP developing countries are
likely to have to find their own way.  Whether that should impact our
recommendations on people, as I think you're suggesting, is obviously a
rather problematic question.  I don't think it should; I'd rather we
nominated people on their merits and told governments, you wanted a WG, now
put your money where your mouths were.  If they're not prepared to fund CS
participation, then that raises some obvious questions about the whole
process.

Different question.  Since you are the head of a major industry association
comprising many of the big dogs in global ICT, it would be interesting to
hear your views on this matter we've discussed about the matter of
delineating between business and CSO (nonprofit) participants when it comes
to allocating scarce slots....

Cheers,

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ewan at intug.net [mailto:ewan at intug.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 9:31 AM
> To: mueller at syr.edu; ajp at glocom.ac.jp; wdrake at ictsd.ch;
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: jeanette at wz-berlin.de
> Subject: RE: [governance] new version Draft 1st statement on WGIG
> structureandbasic principles
>
>
> Milton
>
> I would agree with Bill, it looks a bit obsessive. You are quite right
> that something similar is used in the US of A, under force of law.
> However, it is not the practice elsewhere. Unless you are steeped in
> that tradition it always seems very peculiar. Worse than that, you make
> mistakes. So the danger is that those from the US tradition carefully
> log everything and the others don't and you get into arguments over what
> was, should have been or should not have been logged.
>
> Just to be even-handed, I will also disagree with Bill :-)  My sense is
> that the visceral opposition to the word governance has abated. For
> example, in early June I saw two presentation from AT&T that voluntarily
> used the g-word. So I think some progress has been made.
>
> Setting to one side the idealism of the various ideas for nominations, I
> have seen nothing about money. My assumption is that nobody is going to
> pay for these people. That must severely curtail the list of nominees.
> If it sits permanently in Geneva that favours some nominees, if it
> adopts the ICANN travelling circus model, then the costs are rather
> different.
>
> Ewan
>
> Ewan Sutherland
> http://www.intug.net/ewan.html
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
> Sent: 25 August 2004 07:10
> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: jeanette at wz-berlin.de
> Subject: RE: [governance] new version Draft 1st statement on WGIG
> structureandbasic principles
>
>
>
> Maybe Adam (and Bill) would like to read the U.S. Federal Communications
> Commission's rules on "ex parte communications."
>
> http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/admain/ex_parte_factsheet.html
>
>
> >>> "William Drake" <wdrake at ictsd.ch> 08/24/04 01:24PM >>>
> >I'm sorry, but I still
> >think this is wildly impractical and makes us look obsessive.  How
> would
> >that work in practice?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>