Dear all,<br><br>Although I agree with the starting point of Parminder´s reflections (that there is a vaccum and this vaccum leads to less democratic outcomes, or mostly to paralysis) I would like to make a few observations based Parminder´s suggestion and propose an alternative I have been thinking about. Please excuse me for the length of the message.<br>
<br><b>Observations based on Parminder´s proposal:</b><br><br>- I don´t see where the IGF fits in it. I do believe that IGF is the best forum to identify problems, shape agenda-issues and to start the discussion of solutions. In any arrangement chosen, we should advocate to reinforce the importance of this space. It should clearly be part of the decision-making process that might emerge from enhanced cooperation.<br>
<br>- The MAG is not taken into account in this proposal either. Today, the MAG is what we call a “white elephant”. A large multistakeholder elected group that serves only to plan the next IGF. If elections were rendered more transparent, the role of the MAG could be redesigned, to make it politically relevant and part of the decision-making process.<br>
<br>- We need to seek support from governments who have shown sympathy to the idea of multistakeholderism. Without their support, any proposal we make have little chance to be approved. Having said that, I know that some governments that have supported multistakeholderism would have problems with the model proposed (3 governments per region would be part of this Global Internet Council), because many governments would end up being left out. <br>
<br>- I assume that the participants of the body proposed by Parminder would rotate. Would countries like US accept to be left out? <br><br>While I believe it is not our problem (and not our competence) to solve the many issues of government representation, we need to propose a model that would gather support or acceptance from key-players.<br>
<br><b>Alternative way forward</b><br><br>Obs: I would not like to call it a proposal, since I don’t feel it is mature. But it is definitely another line of thinking and I believe deserves to be explored.<br><br><b>1) The role of the IGF</b><br>
The IGF is a great space of debate, as we all know, and needs to be reinforced. In my opinion the IGF could be able to deliver several outcomes that have been suggested here on the list: send notes or “send SMSs”, send IGF messages, and even make recommendations AT the IGF. But it cannot make policy, and we have reached a point where we need policy design and regulatory coordination/harmonization (even if by soft law).<br>
<br>The IGF is a place of appointing problems, of agenda-shaping and of suggesting some solutions. But it also a place of “parloteo” and the noise needs to be filtered. How to do that? <br><br>Several ways have been suggested by IGC and its members such as:<br>
<br>a) Less workshop sessions<br>b) Close relation between workshops and main sessions<br>c) To have intermediary meetings between the workshops and the main sessions, to send concrete issues/outcomes of the debate to the main session<br>
d) To have closer links between the regional IGFs and the global IGF, so they can send outcomes of regional discussions.<br>e) To have all these outcomes reflected in a final report of the IGF, more objective and with issues more sharply defined.<br>
<br>The suggestions above are not new and I believe we are moving on this direction. But what will be the destiny of this final outcome/report? Being put online and almost no one reads it? Be printed out in the next IGF book? I don’t believe this is enough. Despite being rough, I believe this would be valuable <u>input for policy design</u>. And policy design should be done by a multistakeholder body.<br>
<br><b>2) The new role of the MAG</b><br>It seems hard to understand that we disregard in our proposal the MAG, multistakeholder body that already exists. Is it a black box? Then, let’s advocate for its change, to make it transparent. Now is the right time to do it, with the CSTD WG process. <br>
<br>If the legitimacy of the MAG is reinforced and true conditions for equal participation among stakeholders is achieved, then the role of the MAG could be changed and it could become a body whose main competence is to <u>propose policies and regulation</u>, based on the input received from the IGF. This group would be the leitmotiv of the decision-making process, such as the European Commission, for instance.<br>
<br>This multistakeholder group would have a great power in its hands. While the IGF would be the place to agenda-setting and issue-shaping, the group would be the place to policy design. If any stakeholder group (a group of developed countries, for instance) wants to propose a new policy, this group would need to launch the idea at the IGF (valuing this space). If it gathers support (after being put to the test of debate in the IGF), then it will reach the multistakeholder group, where policy-drafting would take place. Who controls the drafting of the policy, controls a key part of the process. And the control will be multistakeholder.<br>
<br>The MAG would also be responsible to <u>foster coordination</u> with other organizations on the IG constellation, also guided by the discussions in the IGF.<br><br><b>3) The creation of a government council</b><br><br>
This would be controversial. I am particular insecure about this part of the proposal and I am happy to be able to discuss it here, in a friendly environment. It is controversial, but I believe it is the feasible way to go. <br>
<br>There is a reality we cannot ignore. Governments are the ones who bear the financial and human resources needed to implement any policy or regulation (CIR is a bit different, but as I understood enhanced cooperation is not focused on CIR). They are the ones to guarantee execution/enforceability and the ones who can be held liable (even juridically) if things are not implemented the way that it was agreed. Therefore, I don’t believe that any process for policy-making or regulation can be made real (at least not in the international system we have today) without governments having the conditions to say no. <br>
<br>It means that only governments would have voting powers in a such a council, but their power to make changes to the policy drafted by the multistakeholder group would be limited. They would be able to approve the policy or not, and they would be able to adjust it slightly to their realities, but any suggestion of substantial changes would lead to a re-exam of the proposal by the multistakeholder group.<br>
<br><b>4) Advisory groups </b><br>Since the membership of the multistakeholder group is limited in number, the general group of stakeholders would be invited to give their opinion on the proposal of policy/regulation before it is send to the government’s council. It means that political statements or evaluation reports could be sent by ICC, IGC, IETF, government A or B (that are not in the MAG). These statements and reports would help to foster transparency and participatory policy-making.<br>
<br>Well, that is pretty much it that I have been thinking. It is not a mature proposal, but I hope it helps on the brainstorm and above all, that it helps to introduce some concerns (such as the role of the IGF) in our considerations.<br>
<br>I thank the patience of those who read the whole message :)<br><br>Best wishes,<br>Marilia<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Lee W McKnight <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lmcknigh@syr.edu">lmcknigh@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Wolfgang,<br>
<br>
Agreed the ITU PP is a step in the right direction. Though in practice ITU & IETF have been - practicing - enhanced cooperation for years as was discussed a while back on the list.<br>
<br>
Extending that more formally to a broader group of orgs is a good thing, but more of an incremental step than radical break with past practice. And it still leaves civil society in the cheap seats/as spectators at (most) ITU events, typically.<br>
<br>
On another note - and no offense - but can we stop talking about at an 'IG Web' - that sounds so 1990s.<br>
<br>
IG Cloud would be trendier but even vaguer.<br>
<br>
I suppose IG Grid would be my preference, connoting simultaneous info and resource sharing across..the grid.<br>
<br>
Lee<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________________<br>
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [<a href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de">wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a>]<br>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 1:19 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Avri Doria; IGC<br>
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
Hi all<br>
<br>
It makes little sense to continue a theoretical discussion on "enhanced cooperation" when the practical process is moving forward and is creating new facts and opportunities. Do not underestimate the outcome of the ITU PP in Guadalajara with regard to "enhanced cooperation". In my eyes this is really a door opener and a breakthorugh towards a new more issue related "enhanced cooperation" among all players. The fact that the ITU calls in a resolution, adopted by all its 193 member states, for greater "collaboration and coordination" (remember our EC³ definition of enhanced cooperation from 2007) between the ITU on the one hand and ICANN, RIR, W3C, IETF and ISOC (on a reciprocity basis) on the other hand is very remarkable. If you take it seriously what Toure told Kieran Mc Carthy in his interview and look into Beckstroms letter to the ITU from June (published only recently) than you can see that "enhanced cooperation" is moving forward in the right way and gets substance.<br>
<br>
We did not discuss here the idea to create a network of formal arrangements, something like an "IG Web", among all these governmental and non-governmental players. UNESCO (an intergovernmental organisation) and ICANN (a private corporation) created an interesting model of a formalized IG oriented mutual bilateral relationship. The "Letter of Intent" (LOI), signed in Vilnjus, is a good source of inspiration, also for a formalization of the ICANN-ITU relationship. Will we see more of them, also with other players? Probably we will see the emergence of a network of fomalized bilatertal relationship in a very multilateral/multistakeholder environment. I called this previously the IG "Spaghetti Ball". So enhanced cooperation is moving foreward.<br>
<br>
Wolfgang<br>
<br>
<br>
EC³ was defined - in an expert meeting during following the 2007 Summer School on Internet Governance as follows "Enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance is the enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration (EC³) among non-govenrmental and inter-governmental institutions and organisations in developing norms, principles, programmes and procedures for the governance of the Internet in an informal or, when and where needed, formalized way."<br>
<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>
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>
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>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<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>
<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>
<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>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade<br>
FGV Direito Rio<br><br>Center for Technology and Society<br>Getulio Vargas Foundation<br>Rio de Janeiro - Brazil<br>