Objectives - Re: [governance] Draft proposal for IGC workshop
Meryem Marzouki
marzouki at ras.eu.org
Fri Jun 22 05:53:21 EDT 2007
Hi,
Thanks Bill for your comments, I appreciate this direct discussion on
the objectives of this workshop. Let's discuss these objectives in
this thread, distinct from the other thread on panelists in case we
eventually decide to go ahead with my proposal.
I note that I was right in thinking that having this caucus accept
the proposal is not obvious. Since there is very little time left,
let's go directly to the point:
My draft is clearly meant as an IGC workshop proposal to assess the
IGF at this stage. This is not an "IGF on trial" event. This is an
initiative to overcome the failure of the IGF to self-assess its own
achievements. The fact that the Secretariat and the MAG are not
taking the lead on this, with a dedicated session where an analysis
report is presented and opened to discussion, in order to draw final
conclusions as the roadmap to follow until the next IGF meeting, this
major failure is a scandal.
I'm not even discussing here the contents and conclusions of such an
assessment: simply its absence is a scandal. As it was said many
times on this list, the numerous contributions, questions and
concerns made during the consultation meetings sink again and again
into the abyss. Finally, this caucus is almost only busy with
discussions on structure, financing, respect for mandate,
transparency, accountability, etc. of the IGF. And when time comes
for a proposal by this caucus as a whole, this proposal wouldn't
address these issues? What would that mean?
I'm quite open to other formulation, if there is a risk that this
proposal "might be seen as a bit churlish", as you say. But a
reference to TA 72 without a reference to TA 73 is not simply a more
"diplomatic" formulation or a wiser "tactical" approach. It's a
rather different workshop objective.
Best,
Meryem
Le 22 juin 07 à 09:35, William Drake a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Thanks Meryem for doing this. Personally though, I'd rather we
> came at this
> from a different angle.
>
> This framing starts from the IGF as it has operates now, and and
> asks, "have
> these structuring, management and advisory mechanisms proven
> adequate and
> compliant with the Tunis Agenda requirements? What are their
> strengths to
> reinforce and their weaknesses to overcome?" To me, this reads
> like an
> invitation to a public colonoscopy, and to those responsible to
> come and
> justify their actions to a presumably skeptical audience. Given
> that the
> process of standing up the extant structures has been highly
> constrained,
> that political and financial support for the enterprise has been
> hard to
> secure, and that the leadership is trying to do its best to balance
> competing pressures under difficult circumstances, proposing a
> discussion
> around the implicit premise that things should be quite different
> and better
> might be seen as a bit churlish. I'm not sure the IGC puts its
> best foot
> forward as a partner and supporter by adopting the stance of the
> dissatisfied gadfly. In particular, I wonder about asking the mAG to
> approve a session that is framed in part as being about the mAG's
> warts.
> Maybe the mAGers here can assure us to the contrary, but a priori
> it almost
> seems like we're throwing down the gauntlet and daring them to
> reject a
> workshop that at least some members would probably not like to
> happen. And
> if one thinks about scenarios of how such a dialogue might go if
> approved
> and with this panel composition, it seems at best a fifty fifty
> proposition
> that people will walk out thinking that was a positive and
> constructive
> dialogue and things will now be different in a way that garners
> consensus.
>
> What I had in mind, which was reflected in the prior text, was to
> come at
> this from an entirely different angle---the TA 72 mandate. Rather
> than
> dissecting the IGF as it now operates, the starting point would
> have been to
> say ok, the mandate says IGF should do x, y, and z. Are these
> useful, well
> formulated, value-adding objectives that are not being met
> otherwise, and
> hence on which the IGF could make a distinctive contribution? If
> so, what
> would it take to make them happen? In this approach, the ways in
> which
> current practices fall short, where they do, would be obvious
> background
> knowledge rather than the focal point of debate, and the workshop
> would
> hopefully point to concrete and potentially doable fresh ideas
> about how to
> build in activities that could close the gap. In other words, the
> event
> would point to aspirational goals that could be considered and
> pursued going
> forward, rather than focusing on critique of current shortcomings.
> This
> strikes me as an "positive and constructive" approach others could not
> easily reject as divisive, controversial, etc. And per previous,
> to make it
> MS, I'd get onto the panel some of the government, industry, and IO
> people
> who were parties to the formulation of the WGIG text that morphed
> into TA
> 72, as they could reflect on what the thinking was as well as how
> well the
> current formulation embodies it.
>
> In any event, we have one week to pull this together. Whichever
> approach
> there's a majority for fine, but it would be good if we could get
> input as
> quickly as possible from as many people as possible as to which
> approach, or
> some other, seems the most sensible, so a text can be finalized and a
> consensus call organized no later than Wednesday.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> On 6/21/07 7:08 PM, "Meryem Marzouki" <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since my offer to propose a first draft for this IGC workshop was by
>> no mean a proposal to _organize_ it (in partiuclar I'm not offering
>> to contact possible panelists), here is a quick suggestion that I let
>> this caucus discuss and amend. In addition to what was originally
>> proposed in the caucus statement to advocate a main session on IGF's
>> role and mandate, I've felt the need to include one of the main
>> discussion topics of this list since the IGF earliest steps.
>>
>> Best,
>> Meryem
>> =======
>> 1. Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme.
>>
>> The role, mandate, processes and outcomes of IGF: a self-reflective
>> exercise
>>
>> The Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to address critically important,
>> value-adding functions that cannot be performed by any existing
>> Internet governance mechanism. Inter alia, the IGF should bring
>> emerging issues to the attention, and, where appropriate, make
>> recommendations. It should also promote and assess the embodiment of
>> WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. Furthermore, it
>> should strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in
>> Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing
>> countries. To which extent this mandate has been fulfilled at this
>> step, which difficulties have been identified and how could they be
>> solved in order to achieve this mandate?
>> The Tunis Agenda also defines the IGF as “multilateral, multi-
>> stakeholder, democratic and transparent” in its working and function.
>> The IGF is currently mainly structured as an open discursive space,
>> prepared through open consultation sessions. It is managed by a
>> Secretariat. A multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) has been
>> appointed by the UN Secretary-General to assist him in convening the
>> IGF inaugural meeting. The Chair of the MAG is assisted by a special
>> advisory group (SAG). Have these structuring, management and advisory
>> mechanisms proven adequate and compliant with the Tunis Agenda
>> requirements? What are their strengths to reinforce and their
>> weaknesses to overcome?
>> The purpose of this workshop would be to foster an open and inclusive
>> dialogue on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its
>> mandate.
>>
>> 2. Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and their
>> Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take
>> steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including
>> geographical diversity.
>>
>> Organizer: the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.
>> (to be completed).
>>
>> 3. Why do you think the proposed theme is important?
>>
>> The IGF is unanimously considered as one of the main outcomes of the
>> WSIS process, and an innovation in the arena of global governance.
>> Two years after WSIS and one year after the IGF inaugural meeting in
>> Athens, this workshop aims at providing the means of a self-
>> reflective exercise to all IGF stakeholders, as a reflexive
>> governance analysis process in line with the IGF unique innovative
>> feature.
>>
>> 4. Describe the workshop’s conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms
>> of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
>>
>> It goes without saying that a self-assessment of the IGF in terms of
>> role, mandate, processes and outcomes is at the heart of its own
>> mandate. This workshop aims at contributing to achieve this obvious
>> and natural requirement.
>>
>> 5. Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panellists you are
>> planning to invite.
>>
>> Moderators: one of the co-coordinators of the IGC
>> Possible panelists -- NB. the idea is not to choose speakers that we
>> think would be good and interesting, but to have the main actors
>> represented. The UN Secretary-General is missing:)
>> - the other co-coordinator of the IGC, mandated to express
>> concerns discussed on the IGC list
>> - Nitin Desai (as chair of both the MAG and formerly WGIG)
>> - Markus Kummer (as Secretary of both the MAG and formerly
>> WGIG)
>> - Business: ICC rep.
>> - Gov: as we hardly can just pick one, one way could be to have
>> reps. from Greece and Brazil as 1st and 2nd IG organizing countries
>> - IGO: as hard as gov. Either none, or ITU as WSIS organizer
>> (but far from satisfactory:)), or ??
>>
>> 6. Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached them
>> and asked whether they would be willing to participate in proposed
>> workshop?
>>
>> N/A in my opinion
>>
>> 7. List similar events you have organized in the past.
>>
>> ??
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch
> Director, Project on the Information
> Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
> Graduate Institute for International Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list