<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Dear Bertrand,<br>
<br>
Thanks a lot for the detailed email and a constructive suggestion.<br>
<br>
First of all, the title of the thread may be misleading - as i said it
is mostly about the language used. The proposed statement speaks of
'non-binding statements' and at no place refers to recommendations. So
it only goes far as what would be covered by your formulation, and the
kind of processes that Jeannette suggested earlier, without binding
ourselves down too much to some limited possibilities that can expand
in the future.<br>
<br>
The operative sentence from your formulation<br>
<br>
"The IGC believes that it is important ... for the outcomes
of workshops and main sessions, and of the IGFs in general, to be
presented in more tangible, concise and result-oriented formats."<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
is quite fine with me. <br>
<br>
parminder </font><br>
<br>
<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:954259bd0907160422k79b8853fk4eb3bb2f509d7abd@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Dear all,<br>
<br>
I've only been following the discussions on the satement only in the
last hour or so - being stuck in my bed with an awful back ache due in
part to the long economy-class flight coming back from the ICANN
meeting in Sydney (would support business class tickets indeed ..).
Want to congratulate Ginger for an amazing job and her patience. <br>
<br>
Just a few comments if I can help on the issue of "recommendations",
with a proposed formulation in the end.<br>
<br>
1) The title of the thread (should the IGF <u>negotiate</u>
recommendations ?) goes beyond what the Tunis Agenda says ("make"
recommendations). I do not think anybody in the IGC wants to go
backwards on the Tunis document : the capacity of IGF to produce
recommendations is in the text and it is important. What the reluctant
people mean is that "negotiations" as a way to produce recommendations
is the wrong way to go. The experience of those of us who participated
this year in meetings like CSTD and ITU WTPF shows the danger of
reverting to traditional ways of intergovernmental negotiations. <br>
<br>
2) During the Hyderabad meeting last year, an interesting distinction
was made between "recommendations <u>by</u> the IGF" and
"recommendations <u>at</u> the IGF". This would mean that groups of
actors, including Dynamic Coalitions for instance but also ad hoc
gatherings after a workshop, could take the opportunity of an IGF
meeting to prepare recommendations that they would make public at the
IGF and invite other actors to join. This is a truly multi-stakeholder
and bottom-up approach.<br>
<br>
3) In such an approach, some process could be envisaged for the IGF to
record such recommendations in a specific rubric, like the IGF site
already incorporates the reports of the workshops. In the simplest
form, the reports themselves can already contain such recommendations.<br>
<br>
Because of the above, I do not think the opposition in the IGC is
between those who want recommendations (as a condition of IGF's
credibility) and those who oppose recommendations in general. The
debate is more around how to produce something useful without getting
in traditional negotiation mode. The answer in my view is that the
IGF's main mission is to build consensus on 1) the correct
understanding of an issue and its various dimensions, 2) the existence
(or not) of a commonly agreed goal, and 3) the best procedural method
to address the issue (this can mean for instance, a recommendation for
a specific group to be formed, or for an issue to be addressed by a
given organization - or a group of them). <br>
<br>
The term recommendation evokes for too many, the lengthy "resolutions"
adopted in traditional fora. On the other hand, the IGF, in its
innovative manner, could come up with much more specific guidance, for
instance if a critical mass of the relevant actors dealing with an
issue get together at an IGF meeting and, in the course of a workshop,
agree on a specific action (cf. the notion of roundtables when an issue
is considered "ripe" or "mature"). Recommendations can be on an
issue-by-issue basis and do not necessarily engage all of the IGF. <br>
<br>
In that context, I'd like to contribute a possible formulation, trying
to combine the two proposals under discussion : <br>
<br>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">Q6 Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF
to make recommendations "where appropriate". This dimension of the IGF
mandate should not be forgotten, but this does not necessarily mean
traditional resolution drafting. The IGC believes that it is important
in that respect for the outcomes of workshops and main sessions, and of
the IGFs in general, to be presented in more tangible, concise and
result-oriented formats. IGF participants should also be encouraged to
engage in concrete cooperations as a result of their interaction in the
IGF or in the Dynamic Coalitions and to present their concrete
recommendations at the IGF, that would be posted on the IGF web site. <br>
</div>
<br>
<span class="cf_text" style="line-height: 180%;"></span><span
class="cf_text" style="line-height: 180%;">This is just a starting
proposal. Feel free to edit as needed. <br>
I hope this helps.<br>
Best<br>
Bertrand<br>
</span><br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
____________________<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle<br>
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for
the Information Society<br>
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
Foreign and European Affairs<br>
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br>
<br>
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
Saint Exupéry<br>
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>