<!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 text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font size="+1"><font face="Nimbus Roman No9 L">Dear Bertrand<br>
<br>
As always I read your erudite and intelligent arguments with much
interest.<br>
<br>
It is not that I have no hopes from the IGF. I have hopes, and this is
why I continue to closely associate with it.<br>
<br>
And it is not that the IGF system (pulling in together also the
regional/ national IGFs) is not, or will not be, contributing anything.
However, what I fear is that it is setting up a new global governance
paradigm which at its heart is very *conservative*. It will certainly
be able to produce some results like in area of network security that
affect all of us, almost equally. It may be able to produce rules that
provide the basic structure for society's stability, which is the
conservative political agenda. <br>
<br>
However, I see the same emerging global governance model subverting any
or all possibilities of 'progressive change' - towards greater equality
and social justice in this world. Denial of any such possibility is
written in the DNA of the emergent governance model (unlike the DNA of
a democratic model which is, at its root, egalitarianism oriented). <br>
<br>
What we want is a global governance model which is more social justice
oriented. And I do not see the IGF system evolving towards any such
possibility, at least at present. ( I will like to hear arguments to
the contrary.) Unless, of course, as I have argued earlier, the
multi-stakeholder model of IGF is subordinate to, and feeds into, a
more clearly (deep) democratic governance model at the global level. <br>
<br>
Unless I hear a IGF/ multistakeholderism proponent also discuss
parallel developments towards global democracy, I remain skeptical of
the pitch.<br>
<br>
Picking up two examples from your text.<br>
<br>
</font></font>
<blockquote>>Examples include changing "Ending the unilateral
control of the
critical internet resources by the US government" into >"Ensuring
the
integrity of the root zone file". The former is a contentious subject,
the later is a common objective that >allows to discuss whether the
current modalities are sufficient, acceptable, can be improved, etc....</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I am unable to agree to this. One can discuss or perhaps even ensure
the integrity (whatever it means) of the root without its democratic
governance which is the point of the other formulation '"Ending the
unilateral control of the
critical internet resources by the US government". As one can have
economic progress under a despotic rule, but that is *not* ok.<br>
<br>
In the same way<br>
<br>
<blockquote>>"net neutrality" is a good case in point : there is a
high level of
confusion on what it entails and different actors keep >talking to
one
another with completely different understandings of the term itself. I
have suggested elsewhere >(following interesting discussions at the
last
EuroDIG), to reframe it as "Limitations to Network Management" (other
>formulations can be envisaged<br>
</blockquote>
I will rather frame NN issue as a media rights, and economic, social
and cultural rights, issue (in the same way as I cringe from presenting
FoE as a trade restriction issue, a la Google and US gov). And I am
quite sure, both, that<br>
<br>
(1) it is quite difficult to make much progress at the IGF, as it is at
present, in trying to project NN as a social and economic rights
issues, and at the same time,<br>
<br>
(2) whether NN is posited as a network management issue or a rights
issues, things will move in quite different directions.<br>
<font size="+1"><font face="Nimbus Roman No9 L"><br>
I have used the above examples to illustrate how the needs of global
social justice are difficult to be met in a highly *conservative*
governance model which seem to be emerging around, and through, the
IGF. We thus need to build new, more democratic structures, at the
global level, and the the IGF should be an important part of it. <br>
<br>
Thanks and best regards<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
</font></font><br>
On Monday 23 August 2010 04:59 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTi=0H9UHeth+LZX9VqVCeDuBz1f1z4C1Spb9MyH7@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">A few points :
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) a distinction should be made between a) the IGF as the annual
"watering hole" where progress is evaluated and orientations are being
given, and b) the numerous processes that take place during the year in
several spaces (connected or not) on the corresponding issues. One
objective of the IGF in my view is to "synchronize" such discussions,
ie : to make sure that they take into account the same elements and the
same formulation of the issues. The IGF as a whole is not and should
not be the place for the negotiations themselves for the reasons
Wolfgang mentions.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2) Ideally, the IGF can help (re-)formulate issues in a way that
makes them more a common objective, as I believe it is a prerequisite
for constructive engagement. Examples include changing "Ending the
unilateral control of the critical internet resources by the US
government" into "Ensuring the integrity of the root zone file". The
former is a contentious subject, the later is a common objective that
allows to discuss whether the current modalities are sufficient,
acceptable, can be improved, etc....</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3) Thematic networks (instead of dynamic coalitions) could be
set up to connect the different structures dealing with a given issue,
to coordinate their work intersessionally. The outcome of their work
could be "recommendations presented AT the IGF". IGF meetings could
even be used by whatever drafting group they establish to finalize
wording (as opposed to a general IGF drafting exercise) or to present
the current status of work to get feedback. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>4) A major issue that Wolfgang is alluding to is formalizing a
little better the outcome of the workshops :it could be a few "common
formulations" on sensitive topics and "main messages", to reflect the
different dimensions of the issue or even divergent opinions. Such
workshop reports/inputs should be done on site in order - when possible
- to feed into the relevant main sessions. The web site should be
improved to facilitate access to these reports (for the moment it is
too much focused on the preparatory work rather than being a source of
useful resources for participants and non-particiants). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>5) An new format (wrap-up, roundtables ?), intermediary between
workshops and main sessions, could be introduced in the future to help
channel the outcomes of related workshops into the main sessions. It
would gather the organizers of the workshops and the moderators of the
main sessions to help structure the subsequent discussions in the main
sessions. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>6) A more structured circulation of information should be put in
place as the network of national and regional IGFs develop. In
particular, it could produce useful INPUTS into the global IGF from the
national and regional ones. Likewise, the IGF could produce elements
that national and regional IGFs would use to structure their own
discussions. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>7) As for Karl's useful suggestion to deal a bit more with
substance, reformulation of some of the most sensitive topics (before
trying to rush to find "solutions") could be a very beneficial first
step and the IGC could positively contribute :</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>"net neutrality" is a good case in point : there is a high
level of confusion on what it entails and different actors keep talking
to one another with completely different understandings of the term
itself. I have suggested elsewhere (following interesting discussions
at the last EuroDIG), to reframe it as "Limitations to Network
Management" (other formulations can be envisaged). An important
ooutcome of the IGF in vilnius could be the formation of a thematic
network gathering the various processes under way in parallel at
national or regional levels or within IGOs or specific groupings. </li>
<li>likewise, themes like : "applicable jurisdiction for
globally-hosted content", "liability of intermediaries", "procedures
for notice and take-down" and "general principles for social media
terms of service" could lead to similar thematic network formation and
the development of "globally-applicable public policy principles"</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>These elements will form an integral part of the discussions on
IGF "improvements" and the IGC has an important role to play in this
respect. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hope the suggestions above can help a fruitful debate.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bertrand </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2010/8/21 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
target="_blank">wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Parminder:<br>
<div><br>
I have seen any effort to improve IGF's meaningful role in global IG
policy making blocked vehemently, mostly by those who otherwise call
themselves adherent supporters of MSism (multistakeholderism) and of
the IGF (the latest was a very strong blocking of the proposal that
IGF gives out 'messages' on key issues as the EuroDIG does).<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
Wolfgang:<br>
<br>
It was me who proposed in the first MAG meeting after Athens (February
2007) to "invented" a new category of "outcome" which has not the
political bagagae of a "recommendation" in the UN context.
A"recommendation" is a negotiated text and you need a "drafting group"
wehre all parties are represented in a balanced way. If you would start
within a four day meeting with "negotiations" you unavoidably destroy
any type of discussion. Parties will start to fight there there "fixed
position" is reflected in the final document and the struggle goes
around language which is so general that all parties feel that they
have won. The formula "enhanced cooperation" is a very god example.
With other words: You have an "outcome" but it is meaningless.<br>
<br>
To avoid this and to move forward to the discussion of substance you
have to avoid such a type of negotiations where "word smithing" is more
important than the issue. I understand that people want to take
something home after a meeting. And they are not satisfied if they have
only the Chairman´s summary and the thousands of pages of the
transcripts (which are nevertheless importanten) Against this
background I proposed in the MAG<br>
1. to produce readable proceedings in form of an "IGF book" what you
can take home (free of charge), distribute to friends and put on your
bookshelf (and read again if needed) and<br>
2. to introduce as a new (undefined) category the formulaiton of
"messages" as a light weight outcome from a discussion and as a visible
"output" from the meeting.<br>
<br>
My idea with the message was (and is) that each convenor/raporteur of a
plenary or workshop formlates at the end of the session one or two (or
three as a maximm) key conclusions and summarizes this in form of short
messages. This is normally the case in each meeting but so far there is
no mechanism in place to channel this type of conclusions to a audience
beyond the peole sitting in the rom. These conclusions can be
controversial messages (one party said so and another party said so)
but it has to be concrete, precise, cover a key aspect and has to be
also short (not longer than three lines/similar to the length
restrictions you know from twitter). But the most important point is it
would a non-negotiated text. No drafting group needed. If you have 80
workshops and plenaries you will get around 160 messages from 80
perople which avoids that one party overtake or capture the formulation
of the messages. Certainly this will enhance the responsiblity of the
raporteur (and the procedure to nominate a rapporteur).<br>
<br>
I remember very well the discussion in the MAG in February and May
2007. The Brazilians wanted to have something like a "Rio de Janeiro
IGF Declaration". Bilcaho, the Brazilian governmental representative,
was excited in the beginning to have "IGF Messages from Rio de
Janeiro". But for a number of reasons, it did not work for Rio (and not
for the following IGFs).<br>
<br>
When we launched EURODIG, it was easier to convince the core team to
think about "messages" as an alternative to "recommendations". And it
workd in Strasbourg in 2008, where "Messages from Strasbourg" where
produced "bottom up" and the core team just made some final polishment
but did not change the substance of the messages which came from the
rapporteurs of the various sessions. The same happend with the "EURODIG
Geneva Messages from 2009" and now with the "2010 EURODIG Madrid
Messages". The same thing happend with the German IGF where we produced
a one page "IGF-D Messages from Berlin" out of four sessions.<br>
<br>
Why I go back to the history? The lesson here is that nothing will
happen when you introduce it for the first time. If something is new,
it takes time that others are convinced. And as Avri has pointed out,
it is an evolutionary process which evolves bottom up. I am convinced
that the idea of "messages" - if they continue to proof to be a useful
outcome from regional and national IGFs - will be also attractive -
sooner or later - for the global IGF.<br>
<br>
Best wishes<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
wolfgang<br>
</font>
<div>
<div>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>