<!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">Jeanette and Bertrand,<br>
<br>
First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open consultation
transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed countries who
spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have forgotten that part
from their interventions because there principal point was procedural
which I found particularly forceful. And I am sure that if we are
indeed effective in our appeals that would be because of this
procedural part. <br>
<br>
However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my
'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the mentioned
interventions,
while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but the tactical
aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can hardly suppress
the temptation of a bit of
'analysis of motivation'. Political motivations are generally a subject
requiring deeper analysis, and while I do agree that developing
countries are interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the
multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this
makes them 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political
stage, and
developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in this
context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not have
multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations?
Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And why
at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO involvement
friendly and not developed countries? <br>
<br>
Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is,
therefore, a
question of deep political motivations. I understand that developed
countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities for more
democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control over the
techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with stronger IP
regimes, underpin their new strategy for global domination. This works
well with promoting of a weak IGF which is little more than an annual
conference on IG, and which has this great advantage of acting as the
perfect co-option device - letting off excess steam vis a vis desires
for political participation in shaping the emergent techno-social
infrastructure. Unfortunately developing countries mostly have not
woken up to the global eco-socio-political domination aspects of IG,
and see it in terms of statist controls within their own territories. <br>
<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Developed countries
want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many developing
countries want the IGF to have more substantive role in global
IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy regime, for which
'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place holder. Developed
countries seem not interested in furthering the 'enhanced
cooperation' agenda, while the technical community supports them on
this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society (dominated by North
based/ oriented actors). The latter two
also have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature
of
IGF, with no consideration to the fact that<br>
<br>
1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy
making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to
which it does so.<br>
<br>
2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make
recommendations where necessary. <br>
<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I make the above
analysis because I do not agree with the following assertions in
Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive issue in the email.<br>
<br>
</font>><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">para 76 of the
Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the
continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly
revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get
into
any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational
organization of the Forum.</font>
<div><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font></div>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">>In this context, it
would be inappropriate for the
UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to
discuss more than the Yes or >No question.<br>
<br>
Section 74 of TA reads</font>
<style type="text/css">!--
@page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><font face="Nimbus Roman No9 L, serif"><font
size="3">"We
encourage <span style="">the UN Secretary-General
to examine a range of options for the convening of the Forum
..........'<br>
<br>
and 73 b reads IGF will "</span>Have a
lightweight and decentralized structure that would be subject to
periodic review".</font></font></p>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Therefore, while a
review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate the mandate of the
IGF, the '</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">administrative
and operational
organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. <br>
<br>
In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it
closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds (things
that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, some kind
of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more effective
connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is made, stable
public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). <br>
<br>
I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to get
together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable the
IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there is
much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review
debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is
needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and
sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive changes
in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in fact, into
the oblivion. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font><br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:954259bd1002180526g4fbed642yc22d7f6d4ef5cdf2@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Dear all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Parminder wrote : </div>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote"
style="border: medium none ; margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 40px; padding: 0px;"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 19px; border-collapse: collapse;">In
fact the governments who spoke <span class="Apple-style-span"
style="text-decoration: underline;"><b>were not thinking of
multistakeholderism</b></span> but underlying their objections was a
different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up
to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report give
them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not that they
wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some governments who are
members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more vocal to get matters
to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening MS process was not what
the government who spoke at the consultations really spoke about, and
all the concerned actors know this, our first assertion looks really
weak. These gov reps really spoke about the proper process of WSIS
follow up matters going through CSTD, that is all. </span></blockquote>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of
discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in
Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The reasoning is as follows : </div>
<div>- the very idea of an Internet Governance forum came principally
from the discussions of the WGIG, which was a truly multi-stakeholder
group</div>
<div>- even if the mandate of the IGF was included in a document
ultimately signed by governments only (the Tunis agenda), many other
actors have played an important role in its definition</div>
<div>- the functioning of the Forum itself has been organized since
its inception by a multi-stakeholder process (including through the
MAG) </div>
<div>- para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the
continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly
revolve around the question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into
any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational
organization of the Forum.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General
assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more
than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, which has
made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, because of
its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only the legitimate
entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for ECOSOC and the GA; it
is also the sole UN structure that has the possibility to allow a
discussion among a diversity of actors on how to make the IGF even
better without changing its fundamental multi-stakehoder nature. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to
preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bertrand </div>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <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>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>