<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16981" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=305140313-25022010><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: medium 'Times New Roman'; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 19px; LINE-HEIGHT: 25px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: medium 'Times New Roman'; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 19px; LINE-HEIGHT: 25px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif"><FONT
size=2>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Bernard,</SPAN><SPAN
lang=EN-GB style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><?xml:namespace
prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">thanks for
reporting the books of Elinor Ostrom. <SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><SPAN class=apple-style-span><SPAN
style="COLOR: black"><SPAN
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; orphans: 2; widows: 2; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">I've
had the honor and the pleasure to write the preface to the Italian edition of
her book "Understanding Knowledge As a Commons" <SPAN
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; orphans: 2; widows: 2; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">so
it was nice to see her rewarded with the Nobel
Prize</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
class=apple-style-span><SPAN
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; orphans: 2; widows: 2; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; orphans: 2; widows: 2; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">ciao</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
class=apple-style-span><SPAN
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; orphans: 2; widows: 2; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; orphans: 2; widows: 2; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">Fiorello</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=it dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>Da:</B> Bertrand de La Chapelle
[mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com] <BR><B>Inviato:</B> giovedì 25 febbraio 2010
13.44<BR><B>A:</B> governance@lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria<BR><B>Oggetto:</B> Re:
[governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Dear all,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>An important element in this debate would be to introduce the
intellectual framework developed by Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in Economics
2009) regarding Common Pool Resources (CPRs) and their corresponding governance
mechanisms.
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The fundamental idea is that the classical "tragedy of the commons" paper
is simply wrong and that concerned actors (what we call stakeholders) can
develop common governance frameworks for the management of common
resources.
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Although she does not use the term "multi-stakeholder", the spirit is
clearly there and she positions CPR Governance systems as between state
regulation of the commons and privatization/market mechanisms. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I do not have time to detail this here but encourage all participants in
this discussion to read "<A
href="http://www.amazon.com/Governing-Commons-Evolution-Institutions-Collective/dp/0521405998/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267101669&sr=1-3">Governing
the Commons</A>" and "<A
href="http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Institutional-Diversity-Elinor-Ostrom/dp/0691122385/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267101721&sr=1-1">Understanding
Institutional Diversity</A>", two of her seminal books on this
issue. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>More on that later when I have thee time.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Best</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Bertrand<BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Avri Doria <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:avri@psg.com">avri@psg.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">hi,<BR><BR>I
neither see it as a panacea nor even in the category of possible panaceas, for
those are but classes of snake oil that are meant to cure all ills. And
Multistakeholder governance (MSG - i think of MS as multiple sclerosis) does
not belong in the category.<BR><BR>I do see it as a modality that is important
both in itself and as a stage in the evolving development of governance
systems. It represents progress over the nation-state, bi and
multi-lateral modalities. It also moves us beyond the pure top down or pure
bottom up models. In its best form it allows for persons, both natural
and otherwise, to form into self regulated interest and affinity groupings
and allows them, as members of these groups, and with their individual
voices, to participate as peers in the critical governance activities,
including talk, capacity building, action, regulation and
enforcement.<BR><BR>I worry about the Muller/Katz formulation that diminishes
this important stage in governance development. I worry mostly that this
diminution plays into the hands of those who want to remain in, and bolster
the legitimacy of, the older variants of the Westfalian
military-industrial sovereign state - whether this is their intention or
not.<BR><FONT color=#888888><BR>a.<BR></FONT>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5><BR><BR>On 25 Feb 2010, at 09:14, Jeanette Hofmann
wrote:<BR><BR>><BR>><BR>> Milton L Mueller wrote:<BR>><BR>>>
One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently articulated is that it
seems to have no grasp of the limitations of collective governance. It
drastically overstates the capabilities and scope of global governance and
pushes forward participation as the answer to everything.<BR>><BR>> Who
does this and where?<BR>> The MS approach is pushed these days because of
the pending evaluation of the IGF, not as a panacea per
se.<BR>><BR>>> It seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff
we can all agree and solve all problems.<BR>><BR>> Certainly not on this
list. We have endlessly discussed the implications of a forum without binding
decision-making capacity here.<BR>><BR>> But that it isn't consistent
with what we know<BR>>> about human nature, and free expression is a
good example. In order to be able to publish a controversial message on my
blog, I should not have to gain the collective assent of 7 billion people. The
whole point of "governance" in that area, imho, is precisely to shield groups
and individuals from unwanted "governance" by others.<BR>><BR>> With
regard to free expression perhaps although free expression needs rules as well
in order to work. Even this list has rules specifying limits of unwanted
behavior.<BR>><BR>> jeanette<BR>>> --MM<BR>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>>
*From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:<A
href="mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com">bdelachapelle@gmail.com</A>]<BR>>>
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:38 AM<BR>>>
*To:* <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A>;
Jeanette Hofmann<BR>>> *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Parminder;
Kleinwächter, Wolfgang<BR>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance]
Parminder's exchange with Bertrand<BR>>> Dear
all,<BR>>> Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's
remarks, there are<BR>>> ambiguities around the terms
"stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders"<BR>>> that must be
clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with<BR>>>
Karl Auerbach on this topic.<BR>>> "Stakeholders" is
often understood as meaning the three (or four, or<BR>>>
five ...) *"stakeholder groups"* or constituencies :
governments,<BR>>> civil society, business (plus technical
community, and IGOs).<BR>>> According to this approach,
"multi-stakeholder" governance looks a<BR>>> little bit
like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the<BR>>>
three constituencies of governments, employers and trade
unions,<BR>>> each in their respective structures. in a
certain way, ICANN is<BR>>> still structured very much in
this way, with what I have often<BR>>> described as the
"silo structure" that too often prevent real<BR>>>
interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders"
and<BR>>> "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly
distinguished :<BR>>> "stakeholders" is a broader and more
diverse notion. "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl
Auerbach in<BR>>> particular) as meaning i*nstitutional
organizations only* (ie<BR>>> incorporated structures, be
they public authorities, corporations or<BR>>> NGOs),
limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of<BR>>>
individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need
to<BR>>> be the case and that individuals should have the
possibility to<BR>>> participate with appropriate
modalities in multi-stakeholder<BR>>> governance
frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful<BR>>>
example with its open registration policy that allows<BR>>>
individuals. Important established structures (governments,<BR>>>
businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and
decision-making<BR>>> processes are relevant stakeholders,
but individuals too. The corollary of the participation of
individuals is that in the<BR>>> decision shaping phases of
multi-stakeholder processes, such<BR>>> individuals can
represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of<BR>>>
people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be
required<BR>>> to demonstrate specific representation
credentials (hence the<BR>>> classical question : but who
do they really represent ? is moot, and<BR>>> akin to the
"how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with<BR>>>
something to contribute should be allowed to do so because
it<BR>>> informs the processes and the general
understanding of an issue. The<BR>>> purpose of such phases
is to shape issues in the most comprehensive<BR>>> manner,
taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a<BR>>>
stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man
from<BR>>> a developed country can perfectly have a good
knowledge of the<BR>>> challenges of gender for youth in
poor countries and try to ensure<BR>>> that this
perspective is taken into account in the discussions even<BR>>>
if no "representative" from such communities is present.
However,<BR>>> actual representatives of the different
interests are needed in the<BR>>> decision-making phase
that follows, and established institutions and<BR>>>
structures may have a specific role to play here. .<BR>>>
This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism".
In<BR>>> this context, Milton actually presents a very
valid vision, up to<BR>>> the last bit of the paragraph
:<BR>>> MS is at best a transitional
phase implying a motion from purely<BR>>>
intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of
global<BR>>> governance. In this progression,
we need to have a clearer idea<BR>>> of what
the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of<BR>>>
perfect global governance the artificial division of
society<BR>>> into "estates" such as
"government, business and civil society"<BR>>>
no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. Yes,
what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic<BR>>>
form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be
artificially<BR>>> divided into separate estates that are
too rigid and prevent their<BR>>> interaction. (This is why
the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for<BR>>> the IGF is
better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes,<BR>>>
governance should be based on the right for any actor,
including<BR>>> individuals, to participate in an
appropriate manner in the<BR>>> governance processes
dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in<BR>>> (is
impacted by or concerned with). However, multi-stakeholderism
should not be understood as<BR>>> necessarily meaning
interaction between separate stakeholder groups,<BR>>> each
drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on.<BR>>>
Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global
governance<BR>>> is the generalization at the international
level of the kind of<BR>>> representative democracy that
already reaches some limits at lower<BR>>> scales. The
election by 7 billion individuals of a World President<BR>>>
or even Parliament is not the solution.<BR>>> This is
why we must consider the different structures or groups that<BR>>>
individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of
their<BR>>> diverse interests. A single individual has
different stakes in an<BR>>> issue - sometimes conflicting
- and would benefit from having its<BR>>> different
perspectives carried forward in international discussions<BR>>>
by a diversity of actors. To take the example of
environmental<BR>>> issues, citizens do not want their
country to be penalized versus<BR>>> others in the global
regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore<BR>>> want
their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious<BR>>>
of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a
whole,<BR>>> they may want an activist NGO to be part of
the discussions to exert<BR>>> some pressure in favor of a
binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the<BR>>> employees of
companies in an industry that has to support an<BR>>>
important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the
global<BR>>> regime will impact their jobs and therefore
want the said company or<BR>>> its trade group to
participate as well. Finally, they may want to<BR>>> ensure
that any decision is taken on a sound technical and<BR>>>
scientific analysis, which requests expert participation. Etc...
On<BR>>> such global topics, individuals have in fact
several<BR>>> stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship
is one of them. A<BR>>> major one, but only one of them, as
the global public interest is<BR>>> not the mere
aggregation of national public interests. In such a perspective,
the challenge for all of us, including<BR>>> governmental
representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding<BR>>>
of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo
approach,<BR>>> and to explore/invent the mechanisms
through which all stakeholders<BR>>> can, collectively and
collaboratively (I would even say<BR>>> "collegially"),
"develop and implement shared regimes" on specific<BR>>>
issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the
"respective<BR>>> roles" of the different stakeholders
should vary according to the<BR>>> issue, the venue and the
state of the discussion. This means designing processes
for decision-shaping (agenda-setting,<BR>>> issue-framing,
recommendation drafting), decision-making<BR>>>
(verification of consensus, validation), and implementation
(agency,<BR>>> monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and
ICANN are the two major<BR>>> laboratories where this
discussion takes place. And this list, as<BR>>> exemplified
by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main<BR>>>
one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place.
I hope this helps move the discussion forward.
Best<BR>>> Bertrand<BR>>> PS : the above
comments are of course made on a personal basis.<BR>>>
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <<A
href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu">jeanette@wzb.eu</A><BR>>>
<mailto:<A href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu">jeanette@wzb.eu</A>>>
wrote:<BR>>> Second, We<BR>>>
need to stop habitually using
"multi-stakeholderism" as our<BR>>>
label for<BR>>> good
governance and appropriate institutions;<BR>>>
I don't understand why.<BR>>> MS is at
best a<BR>>> transitional phase
implying a motion from purely<BR>>>
intergovernmental<BR>>>
toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance.<BR>>>
In this<BR>>>
progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what
the end<BR>>> point
is<BR>>> - and MS is not it. In
a world of perfect global governance the<BR>>>
artificial division of society into "estates" such
as<BR>>>
"government,<BR>>>
business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the<BR>>>
individual<BR>>>
that matters.<BR>>>
I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of
global<BR>>> governance. Autonomy and
self-determination do not rest and<BR>>>
refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom
only.<BR>>> What we are all arguing about
here concerns democratic "rules<BR>>> for a
life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in<BR>>>
common that respects both, individual and collective
dimensions<BR>>> of it.<BR>>>
The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way
of<BR>>> capturing this collective aspect, as
Karl A. has said many<BR>>> times, but to
give it up and replace it by individuals (who<BR>>>
interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks
like<BR>>> an impoverished notion of
regulation and political rule-making<BR>>> to
me.<BR>>> jeanette<BR>>>
jea<BR>>> In relation to this, I
really enjoy the way P. skewers<BR>>>
the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how<BR>>>
MS is<BR>>>
used to fend off certain political actors in this
context<BR>>> but
somehow<BR>>> does not apply
when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about<BR>>>
process but<BR>>>
not substance, and policy substance is what matters
ultimately.<BR>>>
________________________________________ From: Parminder<BR>>>
[<A
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</A><BR>>>
<mailto:<A
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</A>>]
Sent: Sunday, February<BR>>>
21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc:<BR>>>
<A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>>
<mailto:<A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A>>;
Jeremy<BR>>> Malcolm; Jeanette
Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re:<BR>>>
[governance]<BR>>>
REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing<BR>>>
Jeanette and Bertrand,<BR>>>
First of all I must apologize that I did not
read the open<BR>>>
consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of<BR>>>
developed<BR>>>
countries who spoke on the issue did mention
MS-ism. I must have<BR>>>
forgotten that part from their interventions because there<BR>>>
principal<BR>>>
point was procedural which I found particularly
forceful.<BR>>> And I
am<BR>>> sure that if we are
indeed effective in our appeals that<BR>>>
would be<BR>>>
because of this procedural part.<BR>>>
However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about
my<BR>>> 'analysis of
motivation of governments' that made the mentioned<BR>>>
interventions, while I clarify that it was
not so much<BR>>> motivation
but<BR>>> the tactical aspects
of their intervention that I spoke<BR>>>
about, I can<BR>>>
hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of<BR>>>
motivation'.<BR>>>
Political motivations are generally a
subject requiring deeper<BR>>>
analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are<BR>>>
interested in, as Bertrand says
'preserve(ing) the<BR>>>
multi-stakeholder<BR>>>
nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes
them<BR>>> 'naturally' more
open and democratic at the global political<BR>>>
stage,<BR>>>
and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One<BR>>>
may ask in<BR>>>
this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such
secrecy.<BR>>> Why
not<BR>>> have multistakeholder
involvement in its drafting and<BR>>>
negotiations?<BR>>>
Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed<BR>>>
currently? And<BR>>>
why at WIPO and WTO developing
countries are more-NGO<BR>>>
involvement<BR>>>
friendly and not developed countries?<BR>>>
Where support for multistakeholderism starts and
where it<BR>>> ends
is,<BR>>> therefore, a question
of deep political motivations. I<BR>>>
understand<BR>>>
that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit<BR>>>
possibilities<BR>>>
for more democratic global policy forums on
IG issues<BR>>> because
control<BR>>> over the
techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along<BR>>>
with<BR>>>
stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global<BR>>>
domination. This works well with
promoting of a weak IGF<BR>>>
which is<BR>>> little
more than an annual conference on IG, and which has<BR>>>
this great<BR>>>
advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device -<BR>>>
letting off<BR>>>
excess steam vis a vis desires for political
participation<BR>>> in
shaping<BR>>> the emergent
techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately<BR>>>
developing<BR>>>
countries mostly have not woken up to the global<BR>>>
eco-socio-political<BR>>>
domination aspects of IG, and see it in
terms of statist<BR>>>
controls<BR>>> within
their own territories.<BR>>>
Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is.
Many<BR>>> developing countries
want the IGF to have more<BR>>>
substantive<BR>>>
role in global IG regimes, along with
a specific Internet<BR>>>
policy<BR>>> regime, for
which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the<BR>>>
place<BR>>>
holder. Developed countries seem not interested
in<BR>>>
furthering<BR>>> the 'enhanced
cooperation' agenda, while the technical community<BR>>>
supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many
among civil<BR>>>
society<BR>>> (dominated
by North based/ oriented actors). The latter<BR>>>
two also<BR>>>
have often supported the case for weak, annual
conference,<BR>>> nature
of<BR>>> IGF, with no
consideration to the fact that<BR>>>
1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global<BR>>>
Internet policy<BR>>>
making, and its effectiveness can only be measured
by the<BR>>> extent
to<BR>>> which it does
so.<BR>>> 2. Specifically,
Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF<BR>>>
to make<BR>>>
recommendations where necessary.<BR>>>
I make the above analysis because I do not agree with
the<BR>>> following<BR>>>
assertions in Bertrand's email, which
frames the key substantive<BR>>>
issue in the email.<BR>>>
para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the
desirability<BR>>>
of the<BR>>>
continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG<BR>>>
should mainly<BR>>>
revolve around the
>question : continuation Yes or No ?<BR>>>
and not get<BR>>>
into any renegotiation of the mandate or
the<BR>>>
administrative and<BR>>>
operational organization of the Forum.<BR>>>
In this context, it would be
inappropriate for the UN<BR>>>
General<BR>>>
assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only
bodies)<BR>>> to
discuss<BR>>>
more than the Yes or >No question.<BR>>>
Section 74 of TA reads<BR>>>
"We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range
of<BR>>> options<BR>>>
for the convening of the Forum
..........'<BR>>> and 73 b
reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized<BR>>>
structure that would be subject to periodic
review".<BR>>> Therefore, while
a review of the IGF can certainly not<BR>>>
renegotiate<BR>>>
the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and
operational<BR>>> organization
of the Forum' is certainly open to review and<BR>>>
change.<BR>>>
In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes<BR>>>
(taking it<BR>>>
closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek
other kinds<BR>>> (things that
can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused<BR>>>
agenda,<BR>>>
some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and
more<BR>>> effective
connections to forums where substantive Internet<BR>>>
policy is<BR>>>
made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality
etc).<BR>>> I also think that
to ensure that progressive forces are not<BR>>>
able to<BR>>>
get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed<BR>>>
to enable<BR>>>
the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become
really<BR>>> effective,
there<BR>>> is much more
exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF<BR>>>
review<BR>>>
debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the
IGF'<BR>>> than is<BR>>>
needed on pure merit of the issue.
Such strong posturing and<BR>>>
sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more
progressive<BR>>> changes in
the IGF, which are much needed, into the<BR>>>
background, in<BR>>>
fact, into the oblivion.<BR>>>
Parminder<BR>>>
Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all,<BR>>>
Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke
were not<BR>>>
thinking<BR>>> of
multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a<BR>>>
different politics. They suspect China
(along with some<BR>>> others)
is up<BR>>> to some games here,
and more open consideration of UN SG's<BR>>>
report<BR>>> give
them a better chance to put their views in more<BR>>>
solidly, not<BR>>>
that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also,
some<BR>>> governments who are
members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously<BR>>>
are more<BR>>>
vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since<BR>>>
weakening<BR>>>
MS process was not what the government who spoke at
the<BR>>>
consultations<BR>>>
really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this,<BR>>>
our first<BR>>>
assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really
spoke<BR>>> about
the<BR>>> proper process of
WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD,<BR>>>
that is<BR>>>
all.<BR>>> I must correct
this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of<BR>>>
discussions was clearly in the minds of most
governments who<BR>>> spoke
in<BR>>> Geneva to support
having the report presented to the CSTD.<BR>>>
The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an
Internet<BR>>> Governance forum
came principally from the discussions of<BR>>>
the WGIG,<BR>>>
which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the<BR>>>
mandate of<BR>>>
the IGF was included in a document ultimately
signed by<BR>>>
governments<BR>>> only
(the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an<BR>>>
important<BR>>>
role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum
itself<BR>>> has
been<BR>>> organized since its
inception by a multi-stakeholder process<BR>>>
(including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis
Agenda<BR>>>
mentions<BR>>> "the
desirability of the continuation"; ie : the<BR>>>
recommendations of<BR>>>
the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question :<BR>>>
continuation<BR>>>
Yes or No ? and not get into any
renegotiation of the<BR>>>
mandate or the<BR>>>
administrative and operational organization of the Forum.<BR>>>
In this context, it would be
inappropriate for the UN General<BR>>>
assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies)
to<BR>>> discuss<BR>>>
more than the Yes or No question. The
capacity to self-organize,<BR>>>
which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved.<BR>>>
The CSTD,<BR>>>
because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of
WSIS, is<BR>>> not
only<BR>>> the legitimate entry
point to prepare the draft resolutions for<BR>>>
ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that
has the<BR>>> possibility to
allow a discussion among a diversity of<BR>>>
actors on how<BR>>>
to make the IGF even better without changing its
fundamental<BR>>>
multi-stakehoder nature.<BR>>>
The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order
to<BR>>> preserve the
multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF.<BR>>>
Best<BR>>>
Bertrand<BR>>> --
____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué<BR>>>
Spécial pour<BR>>>
la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information<BR>>> Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French<BR>>>
Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel
: +33 (0)6 11<BR>>> 88 33
32<BR>>> "Le plus beau métier
des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes"<BR>>>
Antoine de<BR>>>
Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than<BR>>>
uniting<BR>>>
humans")<BR>>>
____________________________________________________________<BR>>>
You received this message as a
subscriber on the list:<BR>>>
<A href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A>
<mailto:<A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A>><BR>>>
To be removed from the list, send
any<BR>>> message to: <A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>>
<mailto:<A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A>><BR>>>
For all list information and
functions, see:<BR>>> <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target=_blank>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>>>
Translate this email: <A
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target=_blank>http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A><BR>>>
____________________________________________________________<BR>>>
You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<BR>>> <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A>
<mailto:<A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A>><BR>>>
To be removed from the list, send any message
to:<BR>>> <A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>>
<mailto:<A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A>><BR>>>
For all list information and functions,
see:<BR>>> <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target=_blank>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>>>
Translate this email: <A
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target=_blank>http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A><BR>>>
-- ____________________<BR>>> Bertrand
de La Chapelle<BR>>> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de
l'Information / Special Envoy for<BR>>> the Information
Society<BR>>> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et
Européennes/ French Ministry of<BR>>> Foreign and European
Affairs<BR>>> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<BR>>>
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine
de<BR>>> Saint Exupéry<BR>>> ("there is
no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")<BR>>
____________________________________________________________<BR>> You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>> <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=im>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>>
<A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=im>> For all list information and functions, see:<BR>>
<A href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target=_blank>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>><BR>>
Translate this email: <A href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target=_blank>http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A><BR><BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR> <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=im>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>
<A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5>For all list information and functions, see:<BR> <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target=_blank>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR><BR>Translate
this email: <A href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target=_blank>http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><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></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>