<!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">
<br>
<br>
William Drake wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:398A6300-8520-4618-92F5-1B0273B8CBCA@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">Hi Bertrand
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Jul 16, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><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>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Right, CSTD and WTPF really make the point. So I said negotiate for a
reason. It is extremely difficult to imagine how the IGF per se could
"make" recs without it becoming a negotiation, that's just how
governments operate, it's in their DNA. I can't think of a single
IGO-based process in which governments sit as peers with other actors
and collaborate on texts without clear differentiations in "respective
roles and responsibilities," i.e. nongovernmentals can weigh in but
then the governments agree the text. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
If we in this early evolving phase of this (probably) promising novel
multi-stakeholder institutions - IGF - get into self-fulfilling
prophecy of condemnation to governmental DNA, we are done. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:398A6300-8520-4618-92F5-1B0273B8CBCA@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>Can you? (Even in ICANN this doesn't happen; Milton's proposed
disbanding GAC and having governmentals just blend into supporting
orgs, but I'd be shocked if they went for that.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Which is not to say it is absolutely impossible. In some
standards and security groups there's peer-level MS cooperation. So,
as I said before, it would depend very much on the modalities etc,
which are unknowns, and dialogue would be needed to see whether a
palatable model could be arrived at. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
In that case we share a common objective. What do you think we can do
to best push for such a new model? I have been trying what I think is
the best way to push for it, but we dont seem to agree much at all.
What is your strategy?<br>
<br>
I am very much for a IGF session on this dialogue - which is very
different from stating it in the IGC response to IGF's review. This
response should contain what would be the likely position we will take
at such a dialogue. It is in this sense i asked for your views that you
contribute to the proposed dialogue. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:398A6300-8520-4618-92F5-1B0273B8CBCA@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div> But insofar as most of the governments that have been calling
for recs are hardly friends of CS, and indeed would like to go back to
WSIS procedures if anything, it's hard to be optimistic.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Thats the problem. You are not optimistic. Others are, because this may
be our only bet. Think of the alternatives. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:398A6300-8520-4618-92F5-1B0273B8CBCA@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"> <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>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Right, and a number of us supported that. And there was
Wolfgang's related proposal for "messages from the IGF." But do you
think the governments calling for recs would be satisfied with that,
really? I'd be rather surprised, to put it mildly. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
We are not trying to satisfy the governments you talk about - we are
trying to make tentative movements towards a model that suits us best,
and is possible. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:398A6300-8520-4618-92F5-1B0273B8CBCA@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"><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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<div>I would be fine with that. Or with a formulation that combines
this with my suggestion of a call for open, inclusive, and probing
multistakeholder dialogue on whether adopting recommendations at the
IGF level could be appropriate.</div>
</blockquote>
that suggestion should go in our inputs for the next IGF agenda. In the
review document more than anything else it throws serious doubts on
some text on IGF mandate which really is not our purpose.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:398A6300-8520-4618-92F5-1B0273B8CBCA@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Finally, just for the record,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Jul 16, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br>
</font>Also, it's not even accurate to say that "IGF stakeholders
have been divided as to whether the requirement of appropriateness ever
has been or could be met". In fact they haven't addressed their minds
to this point at all. I don't recall anyone ever saying, "Well yes the
IGF could make recommendations, except for this requirement of
appropriateness". They haven't even gotten to that point - rather they
have harped on the fact that the IGF has no mechanism to produce
recommendations, and implying that no such mechanism is possible
without destroying the IGF as we know it.</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I don't know who you talked to in Tunis or during the preparatory
process Jeremy, but there were definitely governments and major
nongovernmental stakeholders that absolutely did not want a commitment
to do recommendations, period. "Where appropriate" provided a way out
that could be presented as consistent with the mandate. If they had
read the TA as you do, they would not have agreed to it in Tunis,
and there might not be an IGF.
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill<br>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>