[governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF improvement

[Marilia Maciel]

Hello Adam,

Please, find some comments below

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> 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.)
>

Enhanced cooperation was certainly a much more palpable issue on the table
than ICANN related stuff. What I meant was that both enhanced cooperation
and the recent dispute GAC X Board has acerbated the moods and prepared to
the narrative that non-government actors are on one side and governmental
actors are on the other. As I explained, this reasoning is not true and
surely did not reflect the cleavages in the working group.


>
> 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.
>
> The first meeting was in Montreux. We were not in a castle, but it was a
bit far from the excitements and distractions of Geneva :) But no one liked
that, actually.

The truth is, we may be all locked up in a room together, but if the spirits
are not open to dialogue, little will happen. Every group needs to make a
strong decision to reach out now.


> 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..)
>
> No, enhanced cooperation was not put on the table as an issue, per see. It
appeared on the text of a chapeau that India proposed to the report. I do
agree that we need more clarity on what EC stands for and what does it mean
to say that this process is "complementary" to the IGF. It is one of the
topics that would require some frank and open multistakeholder discussion
this year. There are several possible occasions to do it, but maybe a
workshop could be proposed in the IGF about that, with wide representation
and counting on the presence of some government from IBSA.


> 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.
>
> Totally agree with you! The conduction of the WG was not satisfactory. And
with such a difficult task at hand, I believe that the chair should have
sought advice from experienced people on this field, such as Markus, Nitin
and others. I heard that none of them was approached.


> Hope you all get a chance to reconcile the differences.  Thanks again, your
> notes much appreciated.
>
> Welcome


> 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
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110329/a6fca3b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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