<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
>It looks to me like a decision making IGF won't get consensus
acceptance here - and even if it did it would be a lost cause I think
as it will be opposed by so <br>
> many other interest groups. So maybe we should drop that
altogether.<br>
<br>
"Decision making IGF' ???. Whoever asked for it? In fact I have been on
this list for a few years and I have never heard one person in any
seriousness asking for a decision making IGF. Jeremy's views are
relatively most developed in this area, an he doesn't ask for a
decision making IGF. An IGP paper did flirt with the possibility of IGF
in some way taking up soft oversight of the ICANN to help it to transit
away from US control, but a lot of detail was offered that it does
*not* involve any hard decision making.<br>
<br>
And since the above is said in relation to present proposals for an IGC
statement, I wonder why a simple statement seeking 'strengthening of
the IGF' which I am sure has been reflected in earlier IGC statements
should deteriorate unilaterally, over two emails, into being
interpreted as a call for a 'decision making IGF' which should now be
dropped since it is unlikely to get the group's consensus.<br>
<br>
Extreme and facile labeling of positions does not help the discussions.
I can very well say calling IGF as a 'Davos of the Internet' serves the
purpose of legitimizing control of global Internet policies related
decision making by big industry.<br>
<br>
To tell the truth, I wonder how an arm of global civil society can be
so insensitive to the fact that a very large part of progressive global
civil society sees Davos as symbolising (and legitimising) powerful
economic players take up the leadership of the world, in absence of the
needed political vacuum. We are here looking for legitimate global
public policy processes, not imposition on new neo-liberal models on
Internet governance. The situation is bad enough without our help. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
Ian Peter wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:95EED70D21DF4F488D0CB554ECE20772@IAN" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It looks to me like a decision making IGF won't get consensus acceptance
here - and even if it did it would be a lost cause I think as it will be
opposed by so many other interest groups. So maybe we should drop that
altogether.
I do like the "Davos for the Internet" concept.
However strengthening IGF should still be on the agenda. There are a number
of possibilities here we should explore.
Wolfgang mentions strengthening dynamic coalitions. We could also explore
"enhanced co-operation" (sorry!) with existing governance bodies within an
IGF framework. Also "enhanced co-operation" with UN lead agencies in this
area. Parminder also mentions funding. Also, what ways could we strengthen
the policy dialogue role to make it more effective? Perhaps the
recommendations from UNCSTD could request "all stakeholders, including
existing internet governance organizations, to engage fully ....
I think Wolfgang's idea of a meeting with interested governments in February
is a good one, perhaps to explore further how a strengthened IGF might
operate
Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ianpeter.com">www.ianpeter.com</a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de">mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a>]
Sent: 17 January 2009 23:04
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Parminder; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
Subject: AW: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
My comments are inside
Parminder:
(1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will
that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG,
specifically global public policy making in this area. For this reason,
not only the IGF should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be
suitably strengthened.
Wolfgang:
In this generally way I would agree but the question is what do you mean
by "strengthend"? If you understand that this includes that the IGF should
be transformed into a negotiation body I would disagree. In my eyes the
absence of a negotiation process is a strength and not a waakness of the
IGF. It has liberated the debate. Negotiaiton would close it again. Look
at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Nobody would come and argue that the
WEF should adopt policy recommendations to save a disorganized world. But
political leaders, business tycoons and also NGOs going to Davois to get
inspiration, to have contacts, to learn from other perspectives. In my
eyes such a "Davos for ther Internet" is needed more than a "blabla-
declaration" at the end of the 4 days meeting. the WEF in Davos does not
gove receommednations but send messages. I ma in favour of IGF messages,
but I am against IGF Recommendations. I understand that there has to be a
place in the global IG architecture where political recommendations have
to be negotiated. But we should not be naive. If it comes to hard
realities, governments will start such a process (and exclude non-
governmental stakeholders as civil society) anyhow. They can do this
within existing organisations or create a now channel. It depends from the
political will, the various interests and the punlic pressure "to do
something" (which could be the case in the fight against cybercrime of
Childpornography on the Internet). Multistakhoderism is still a
"pioneering concept" and not a reality in the power diplomacy of the 21st
century. My proposal is not to overstretch the IGF itself but to
strengthen the "Dynamic Coalitions" to do part of this job of working on
receommendations. The DCs are bodies which are self organized and totally
free to give themselves a mandate to do this. If a DC has the right
participants (multistakeholder is one of a basic criteria to be recognized
as a DC) and you have enough strong governments, private sector and CS as
members any political recommendation coming out from the DC could play a
very influential and important role. The challenge here for the IGF would
be to agree on a more formal procedure for the official recognition of a
DC. This could become a function of the MAG (as ALAC recongizes, based on
technical criteria, At Large Structures/ALSs)
Parminder:
(2) We should also assert that there are two clear, and relatively
distinct, mandates of the IGF - first, regarding public policy functions,
as a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding
capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role needs to be
strengthened. Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building)
should not be promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related
role). If the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its
one or the other principal roles, adequate measures should be considered
to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role.
Wolfgang:
This is okay. But the IGF should do this in collaboration with the general
follow up of WSIS. Close cooperation with GAID would be also a good idea,
in particular if it comes to capacity building.
Parminder:
(3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
interest.
Wolfgang:
It is always good to ask for money. A frist concrete step would be that
the IGF gets a budget status in the UN. But this decisi0n is made by
govenrments only. How civil society can lobby for such a governmental
decision? Private sector is an unstable partner in this time of financial
crises. Look at the GAUID experiences. The only fact that the former CEO
of INTEL chairs GAIDs Strategic Committee does not mean, that INTEL, which
jumps now into a greta valley, has opened its pockets. Or look into the
DSF. How much they got since Tunes? Did somebody ring bells loud enough to
get notieced during the recent Lyon conference? With other words: I fully
agree but we shiuld realstic and to very concrete.
Wolfgang
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>