<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Now for something a bit delayed – the pieces finally in place.</div><div><br></div><div>Beginning here, two emails will report on IGC at the Consultation on Enhanced cooperation, New York, Tuesday Dec 14 2010. This first email summarizes my observations, then provides links to a transcript, audio and video snippets, and the handout; as well as time code markers for some media links and relevant notes. The second email will address apparent implications from the day’s discussion for sustaining the multi-stakeholder model.</div><div><br></div><div>Source material to support this first email is in a mini-site, <a href="http://igc.concord-net-now.org">http://igc.concord-net-now.org</a> (which uses a secondary on one of my utility domains - any material that will be kept longer-term passes to Jeremy and onto the IGC site).</div><div><br></div><div><b>Summary</b></div><div><br></div><div>My ears – with of course my personal filters – heard, as follows:</div><div><br></div><div>The exchanges, across the day Dec 14, came across like nothing so much as a re-run of the five or so years of WSIS, with then also ladled on the ensuing more recent five-year history.</div><div><br></div><div>As we all know too well … but to be clear about antecedents: the struggle that overtook WSIS targeted the expansion of any Internet oversight functions, from a single country, to shared responsibility worldwide. Then, the stalemate that concluded WSIS produced IGF and, nominally, Enhanced cooperation. </div><div><br></div><div>But the changes that were sought, for expansion of oversight, largely have not come to pass. If that point is only implicit in the day’s proceedings. IGF by design was not spec’ed to make changes, and the status quo is only slightly evolved by the last five years of ICANN history. Enhanced cooperation has until now been dormant and so of course is also without effect.</div><div><br></div><div>Across particularly the first phase of WSIS, a core group of countries were often the ‘voices’ for expansion, for example, India, China, Brazil, South Africa. So, at the end of the decade, at the Dec 14 2010 Enhanced cooperation consultation, five years after WSIS, all-in about ten years later? The voices we heard leading were … Brazil, India, South Africa, China supporting. For example. And of course several other countries, also voices familiar from WSIS.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>To get some sense for how the other fellow sees it seems vital naturally, particularly with deep differences in views. The above is the sense I took away. In summary, a group of actors sees that there have not been changes and now is the time, finally.</div><div><br></div><div>Of course the additional, and pivotal, product of WSIS was the emergence of the multi-stakeholder model. That, properly, is where we focus concern. The day’s events reflected on this – which comes along in a separate email, as said.</div><div><br></div><div>Also. There seemed one fairly firm conclusion from the day. At least if you follow how Under-Secretary-General Sha put it: A process of Enhanced cooperation is now ‘irreversible.’ A process that will be separate from, if perhaps complementary to, IGF. His conclusion cited the recent history of ECOSOC resolutions; the statement itself you can find at 1:57:45 in the <a href="http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html">afternoon UN video</a>.</div><div><br></div><div>Various voices, states and others, were strongly, if diplomatically, in opposition. But the die seemed cast, if into a heated furnace ...</div><div><br></div><div><b>Transcript, audio and video snippets, time code markers in media links, relevant notes</b></div><div><br></div><div>In general, as I said to Milton at the day’s conclusion, IGC’s part seemed to be ‘a hit.’ There was more than one appreciative response to the scheduled IGC ‘presentation’ in the morning. (Transcript of my comments is linked below.) Including appreciation for our ‘Wikileaks and Enhanced Cooperation’ handout. Fortunately both Milton and I were there. Milton has given good detail on his comments in the afternoon. Particularly, Milton conveyed important substance from the lunch discussion with the Brazilian delegates. (Links are below to video snips of both Milton’s and my afternoon interventions, also the intervening response from Under-Secretary-General Sha.)</div><div><br></div><div>Morning</div><div>A transcript of my scheduled comments for IGC is at</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://igc.concord-net-now.org/morning/morning.html">http://igc.concord-net-now.org/morning/morning.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>There is at the end also a pdf of the transcript, as well as a snip of the audio. (At 2:23:04 in the <a href="http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-consultations-on-enhanced-cooperation-of-international-public-policy-issues-pertaining-to-the-internet-am.html">UN morning audio</a>. The morning session was audio only, while video came back up for the afternoon.)</div><div><br></div><div>Afternoon</div><div>There are three video snippets from the afternoon.</div><div><br></div><div>My afternoon intervention is at</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://igc.concord-net-now.org/allen/Allen.html">http://igc.concord-net-now.org/allen/Allen.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>(At 1:35:48 in the <a href="http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html">UN video</a>. Less than five minutes - plus, see below.)</div><div><br></div><div>Milton's is at</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://igc.concord-net-now.org/mueller/Mueller.html">http://igc.concord-net-now.org/mueller/Mueller.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>(At 1:27:20 in the <a href="http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html">UN video</a>. Less than four minutes.)</div><div><br></div><div>Milton's came before mine chronologically (as the time code shows). I have left U-S-G Sha's comments at the end of my afternoon segment - there he offers appreciation for Milton's, as you may by now have seen and heard. Because one of U-S-G Sha's longer comments - made between Milton's and mine - are apropos the day's discussion, those are the third video up.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://igc.concord-net-now.org/sha/Sha.html">http://igc.concord-net-now.org/sha/Sha.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>(At 1:31:31 in the <a href="http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html">UN video</a>. Four plus minutes.)</div><div><br></div><div>(Navigation in the little mini-site is a bit funky - the screen capture tool used to grab the video presented a puzzle, which led to a workaround (don't ask, you don't want to know). But for a simple little site, it will do.)</div><div><br></div><div>The two UN pages that hold the recordings for the day, to recapitulate:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-consultations-on-enhanced-cooperation-of-international-public-policy-issues-pertaining-to-the-internet-am.html">http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-consultations-on-enhanced-cooperation-of-international-public-policy-issues-pertaining-to-the-internet-am.html</a></div><div><a href="http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html">http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html</a></div><div><br></div><div><b>Notes</b></div><div><br></div><div><i>Item</i></div><div>As we see, there is a contrast between the core dialog of the day, as MIlton saw it, compared with my take. That, in part anyway, likely is in the filters each of us brings to it. I will not imagine a ‘correct’ view.</div><div><br></div><div>Rather, the difference in implication is interesting. My understanding is of a continued push forward on an original agenda, from WSIS. With still (very much) a place for multi-stakeholders. Rather than a debate about future forms of governance.</div><div><br></div><div>The reality is likely more complicated than either of our summaries, and future choices by the various actors will reveal more accurately.</div><div><br></div><div><i>Item</i></div><div>To note as well. Bill Graham at lunch offered in my view a key formulation for what might work, in the quest for greater effectiveness at IGF. (Myself I have long held for the necessity of IGF ‘recommendations' – but see Bill’s thought.)</div><div><br></div><div>I hope I do his justice: Instead of discussions to produce ‘recommendations,’ which because of impending clout mean struggle over text. Rather, focus discussion on ideas, and how different ideas compete or dovetail, a discussion that can be productive</div><div><br></div><div><i>Item</i></div><div>Myself, I found U-S-G Sha’s candor refreshing, including about himself and about his country. A genuine invitation to ‘say it like it is,’ in a United Nations setting, has to be a good occasion. (As to the comparison with the once-upon-a-time US appointee, Bolton, I find effectively no similarity and differences obviating.)</div><div><br></div><div><i>Item</i></div><div>John Curran, I thought, near the end of the afternoon, summarized the tensions between those pro and those con a separate process of Enhanced cooperation. See 2:33:48 in the <a href="http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html">UN video</a>. (While U-S-G Sha offered appreciation for me by name at the end of an earlier comment, my impression was that he had John in mind, judging from the context.)</div><div><br></div><div><i>Item</i></div><div>Finally, as to the numbers of participants in the Consultation, my impression was closer to a count of 100 rather than 50. I will try to check.</div><div><br></div><div>David Allen</div><div><br></div></body></html>