[governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF improvement
Adam Peake
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Tue Mar 29 06:52:11 EDT 2011
Marilia, thank you very much for the assessment
of the meeting. Interesting and helpful.
Hope there will be an extension and further
opportunity to build some consensus. It will
mean compromise. Would be interesting to see
where the areas of disagreement where, perhaps a
matrix or (thanks GAC... ) a scorecard.
Couple of questions:
How were GAC and ICANN discussions a distraction?
Not sure what that could have to do with the IGF,
enhance cooperation perhaps (in that perhaps it's
an example of it? Unclear.)
Interesting comment about splitting into separate
stakeholder groups at the end of the day, then
the useful dinner at the end. Seem to remember
WGIG members saying that being locked up together
was helpful, broke down barriers. Perhaps if
there's another WG meeting you need to go back to
whichever castle (?) WGIG used.
And interesting about the Indian position and
reaction to it and to them. Was enhanced
cooperation defined, was there agreement on what
it is? (I know I don't know..)
III and "submit your proposal"
I've only worked for the IGF Secretariat during
the main IGF meetings, not consultations, so this
just an outsider's observation: sounds like the
WG needed a strong secretariat. Avri and Markus
have been able to pull together very helpful
working documents in very quick time. Needs
people very knowledgeable of the issues,
knowledgeable of the stakeholders and to be
diplomatic. Markus and Avri shared those skills,
sounds like the CSTD lacked them.
Hope you all get a chance to reconcile the
differences. Thanks again, your notes much
appreciated.
Adam
At 6:15 PM -0300 3/28/11, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>Please find below my personal political assessment of the meeting.
>If you prefer to read it online, here is the
>link:
><http://observatoriodainternet.br/second-meeting-of-the-working-group-on-improvements-to-the-internet-governance-forum-ends-with-no-final-report>http://observatoriodainternet.br/second-meeting-of-the-working-group-on-improvements-to-the-internet-governance-forum-ends-with-no-final-report
>
>Second meeting of the Working Group on
>improvements to the Internet Governance Forum
>ends with no final report
>
>
>Marilia Maciel, Center for Technology and Society of FGV, Brazil
>
>
>Warning: This text reflects the author's
>personal opinions and does not reflect the
>position of civil society on the issue.
>
>Multistakeholder collaboration is a powerful,
>creative and positive force. But it never
>achieves an irreversible stage of "maturity"; it
>is something that is constantly under
>construction by collective effort, with
>unclenching fists ands the true desire to build
>trust
>
>
>After two meetings, the
><http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/>working group
>of the UN Commission of Science and Technology
>for Development
>(<http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839>CSTD)
>on the enhancement of IGF failed to prepare its
>final report. The WG was successful in
>"collecting, compiling and reviewing the
>contributions" received, but it was not able to
>make "recommendations² for change, as envisaged
>by the mandate. The chair, Frédéric Riehl, will
>send to the next meeting of the CSTD his
>personal report and a compilation of all
>contributions. Probably he will ask for an
>extension of the mandate of the WG, so the group
>can complete its assignment.
>
>Now that the meeting is over, it is important
>that the largest possible number of participants
>in the WG makes a frank and critical analysis of
>what happened, so the obstacles to build
>consensus can be identified and dealt with. This
>is fundamental to achieve better results in the
>future, if the mandate is renewed by CSTD.
>
>
>Three major issues have prevented this small and
>committed group to reach the expected goals:
>
>
> The reduced number of meetings and the
>mismanagement of the little time that we had.
>More meetings and a more efficient methodology
>could have made much difference;
>
> The existence of conflicting and politically
>sensitive themes on the Internet governance
>agenda this year, as Enhanced Cooperation
>(<http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html>Tunis
>Agenda, paragraph 69) and divergences between
>the GAC and the ICANN Board, served as a
>complicating background. Certainly, the
>overwhelming majority of WG members recognized
>the importance of IGF and genuinely made efforts
>to propose constructive improvements, however,
>the political context made convergences more
>difficult to achieve. Most governmental and
>nongovernmental actors acted within in the WG
>according to their broader political strategies;
>
>
> The high degree of mistrust and poor quality
>of dialogue between stakeholder groups, which
>occurred during most of the time, being
>interspersed by brief genuine attempts at
>rapprochement that only palely reminded us of
>the high level of dialogue we have built over
>the past five years with the IGF.
>
>I - The lack of dialogue deadly injured the working group
>
>
>Perhaps it would be strategically interesting
>for the non-governmental actors to
><http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/03/25/cstdwg-collapse>put
>the responsibility for the lack of dialogue
>entirely on governments. After all, collectively
>we could repeat the mantra that the
>non-governmental share of "multistakeholderism²
>is always constructively in agreement, thus
>trying to strengthen our own participation in
>the Internet governance regime.
>
>However, I believe this view is biased and
>counterproductive, as it does not portray the
>divisions that existed in the working group and
>would not, therefore, contribute to the
>overcoming of obstacles.
>
>
>
>There were honest divergences based on different
>views on the IGF and the current system of
>Internet governance, both among states and among
>non-governmental actors, regarding the main
>themes on the table, such as the discussion on
>results (outcomes) of the IGF, on the
>composition of the MAG and on funding.
>
>
>Most of these differences were not
>irreconcilable, if there had been a frank
>dialogue and attempt to reach a middle ground.
>But that's not what happened, nor in plenary
>sessions, or in corridors. In the corridors,
>business sector representatives complained of
>governments, governments complained about the
>technical community and we, civil society,
>complained of everyone else. After each long day
>of discussion, each stakeholder group would
>split into strategic meetings. The lack of
>dialogue between the stakeholder groups rendered
>the task at hand much more difficult.
>
>
>
>II - India, an actor in the spotlight
>
>
>Among all participants, India was the only one
>to submit a detailed proposal on how to extract
>more objective and concrete outcomes from the
>discussions at the IGF, as early as the February
>meeting in Montreux. This proposal was
><http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Contributions/M1/India.pdf>available
>online in March 16. The text contributed much to
>the debate (whether or not one agrees with its
>substance), because it proposed a chorological
>and rational approach to the issue.
>
>
>There was no other proposal as comprehensive as
>that one the table in the beginning of the
>second meeting, but Indian proposal was never
>discussed. Throughout the process, India as an
>actor (and never their proposals) was placed on
>trial. The country is being criticized on the
>grounds of being proactive, presenting their
>views, and asking for their effective discussion.
>
>We, non-governmental actors, always complained
>about the lack of government involvement, but we
>were unable to be open to hear when such true
>involvement was present in the WG.
>
>
>India is a leading advocate of Enhanced
>Cooperation, and had the transparency and
>coherence to re-affirm it at the meeting, even
>though I consider that this move was unnecessary
>and ultimately counterproductive.
>
>But Indian position in favor of enhanced
>cooperation does not mean we should isolate it.
>That would be a strategic mistake. We should not
>push a government that represents one of the
>largest democracies in the world, and has come
>to defend multi-stakeholder participation in the
>IGF arena, to entrench.
>
>Non-governmental actors need to strengthen
>dialogue and negotiations with India and some of
>the other countries that advocate for enhanced
>cooperation, if not on the name of
>understanding, then on our own strategic benefit.
>
>
>III - Submit your proposal and I will submit mine!
>
>
>Throughout the second day other proposals popped
>up. First, on the composition of the MAG,
>presented by India, the Technical Community and
>Egypt. Then Egypt has made proposals on working
>methods of the IGF and the format of the IGF
>meetings. Civil society also had a procedural
>proposal on how to conduct the discussion.
>However, none of these proposals came to be
>analyzed. We lost precious hours on the last day
>of our meeting, under the baton of the chair,
>aimless discussing question after question
>listed in the questionnaire, without any
>conclusions or sense of ³closure².
>
>
>Basically, presenting
>proposals-and-counter-proposals became the main
>game between the parties, to the point where
>people could not know for sure who-proposed-what
>or who-was-against-what. That was a pity,
>because in fact there were excellent proposals
>on the table and some of them showed
>considerable degree of convergence between them,
>which was never identified during the meeting.
>
>
>IV - The "consensus document" that would not fly
>
>
>The chair tried to grasp the consensus among the
>parties on a document which was handed to us on
>the second day. Despite the commendable
>pro-activity, in my view, also expressed during
>the meeting, the document could not be endorsed
>as the result of the discussions within the
>working group, mainly because:
>
>
> It expressed principles and practices that are
>generally accepted and are commonplace in the
>IGF. It was shallow and had contradictory parts.
>Submit that document to the CSTD would not be
>fair to the efforts of the members of the
>working group because it was not consistent with
>the depth and quality of contributions;
>
> The document presented by the chair was
>extremely conservative regarding the
>improvements in the IGF. It had no structural
>changes but basically maintained the status quo;
>
>
> Therefore, the document did not seriously
>represent a proposal for a consensus among the
>diverging views, but translated much more
>accurately the aspirations of groups that, for
>their own legitimate considerations, want to
>keep IGF without major changes. This rendered
>consensus on the text very difficult.
>
>
>Each time a change was suggested, the paragraph
>was placed in brackets. Of course, the decision
>to use brackets can be interpreted in different
>manners. In my view, it was a last attempt to
>try to work with the text in hand, which turned
>out to be unsuccessful, eventually. After every
>comment, the chair reminded us that time was
>running out and pressed us to accept the text as
>it was. It was a very counterproductive
>afternoon in an oppressive climate.
>
>
>Acknowledging the fact that there was no final
>report was very disappointing for most of us.
>Once the meeting ended, some people, from all
>stakeholder groups approached the chair and the
>Secretary and asked them to seek the renewal of
>the mandate. That was the last move of the
>actors of the WG, all united around a common
>goal. Could this translate into greater future
>cooperation?
>
>
>V - Some take-aways and an invitation
>
>
>On the night of our last day in Geneva,
>something unprecedented (at least during the
>process of the WG) happened: members of civil
>society and the technical community had dinner
>together. The conversation was not about
>amenities, but remained focused on the WG.
>Without strategic considerations or fear, we
>exchanged views.
>
>
>Some differences are more difficult to
>reconcile. Others just seem to be, because of
>the efforts it takes to put oneself in othersZ
>shoes. What fear lies behind the resistance to
>more concrete results arising from the IGF? What
>is the sentiment toward the current composition
>and functioning of MAG? Do we "recognize
>ourselves" in it? What are the reasons and fears
>of governments that advocate for enhanced
>cooperation? Do they all have the same agenda?
>None of these issues was discussed openly in
>recent months by WG members, and may not have
>been sufficiently articulated even in the IGF.
>
>The multistakeholder nature of IGF made us
>achieve something truly amazing over the past
>years. Stakeholder groups can actually talk to
>each other and engage in an open debate on
>difficult issues, such as critical resources,
>access, security and privacy. We left our
>trenches. During these years, I witnessed
>players being genuinely convinced after a fierce
>debate, and also amicably "agreeing to disagree"
>and to continue debating constructively in the
>future. Unfortunately, we are stumbling to do
>the same when we discuss the infrastructure of
>our own regime, outside the "friendly"
>environment of the IGF. How to deal with that?
>
>Multistakeholder collaboration is a powerful,
>creative and positive force. But it never
>achieves an irreversible stage of "maturity"; it
>is something that is constantly under
>construction by collective effort, with
>unclenching fists and the true desire to build
>trust.
>
>
>After our dinner, I probably understand better
>the opinions of colleagues in the technical
>community. While we do not share some views, I
>feel more comfortable and more able to seek
>converging positions.
>
>
>Perhaps we should establish this open and frank
>dialogue on major political issues that will be
>in the agenda of Internet governance this year.
>A workshop? A collective dinner with good wine?
>Here is an invitation... If the bill is shared,
>of course!
>
>
>
>--
>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>FGV Direito Rio
>
>Center for Technology and Society
>Getulio Vargas Foundation
>Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list