Parminder and all,<br><br><br>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another difference between EuroDIG and the IGF is scale. In
EuroDIG we are talking about 2 days, with the maximum of 3 sessions in parallel.
IGF schedule is much heavier, impossible to grasp completely and much more difficult to "summarize".<br>
<br>An additional difference is cultural convergence. EuroDIG is a forum for Europeans. There
is a common cultural background and world view that makes it easier to begin
discussions based on common assumptions. In IGF we need to "culturally negotiate" our understanding of things. Quite harder.<br>
<br>
This is to say that even though summaries of discussions of the sessions (ex:
people said this, other people said that) is necessary to map policy options,
it might not be enough to produce something that is fit for policy-making. And
usually there is no time to transform rough material into material that is fit
for policy-making during wrap-up workshops or main session. These workshops and
main sessions are vital to identify intersections among themes (ex: intersections
between the discussion of a workshop on NN and another in A2K, for instance).<span style=""> </span>But we need more time and more careful discussion
to transform these summaries into something that can serve as input for policy.
This is the reason why a renewed MAG, with broader mandate can make the
difference. Let me reproduce part of an e-mail I sent months ago, in the context of the discussion about EC:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b>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 action
lines regarding policies and regulation</u>, based on the input received from
the IGF. 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-shaping would take place. <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. So MAG could also have a role in the two additional tasks Parminder mentioned:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="sans-serif">"(2) how to effectively communicate them to the spaces/ forums/ bodies
etc that should and would make actual policies, and<br>
(3) how to keep up an ongoing process of reviewing what has been
happening to the outcomes of the IGF, and how well or not they have
been followed up". </font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course, this new role of the MAG should be complemented with
the establishment of links between the MAG and other bodies with actual
decision-making power such as UN bodies and maybe an EC mechanism, if it exists
in the future.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Jeremy´s suggestion ("MAG needs to be split up into stakeholder councils") is very interesting and should be aggregated to this brainstorm.<br>
</p>
<br><br>Best,<br>Marília<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:59 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</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;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<font face="sans-serif">OK, as I said in the other emails, the
'outcomes' issue is the most important one, and we must take the bull
by the horns. My attempt at that:<br>
<br>
The basic issue remains that there must be enough political will, and
the overall control in the hands of those who can guide the group in
expressing the political will of the people rather than squandering it.
This will require the MAG and the MAG chair to be very very conscious
of this main concern and work single-mindedly for it. There has to be a
way to over come efforts at process and substance obfuscation as a way
of retarding progress. I think such a focus forthe MAG is paramount.
Nothing will succeed without it. <br>
<br>
Given that political will and focus, semantics is not important. We
know it wont be an IGF resolution. We can call it IGF's report on 'so
and so issue' or we can call it messages as in Eurodig. However, too
much of 'one said this and other said that' would not work. We need to
be able to close the gaps at least in some key areas, and evne if
differences remain - they can, for instance, be put into 2 or ore clear
models (as WGIG did about oversight models). This still gives the
outside policy makers something to work on, which as I said is the real
objective on which we need to keep focused.<br>
<br>
Now if we can get things like the following from Eurodig's 'Messages
from Madrid' that is great<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> <b>Principles of “network
neutrality” and policies for an open Internet
</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> The key principles underlying the
“open Internet” or “network neutrality” evolve around: (i)
no discrimination of traffic based on sender or receiver; (ii)
unrestricted user choice and access and use of content, applications
and services by consumers – businesses – citizens; (iii)
appropriate, reasonable and non-discriminatory traffic
management............ (read more in the 'messages from madrid' doc)<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
There are real thing that came out of the Eurodig that got followed up,
for instance, a expert group on cross border issues, that Wolfgang now
leads, along with some clues on what kind of work it should take up. <br>
<br>
All such outcomes are rather fine. So we need to see why in 5 years the
IGF has not even moved towards the direction of any such outcomes, when
Eurodig has been able to do it in its first year. We need to see where
did the present structure fail in this job, and accordingly look at
areas which therefore need change/ improvements.<br>
<br>
And of course there are contextual differences. One I can see is that
with Eurodig there was a clear inter-gov body the CoE which could build
on Eurodig's outcomes and within a year come out with what appears to
quite good detailed experts report on 'cross border issues in IG' which
I understand would now receive political attention. We dont have any
such global body at present, and while this makes the case for new
institutional developments around the 'enhanced cooperaiton' peg
(which new institution should be even more multi-stakeholder than the
CoE ones), we may need at present for the IGF to spawn off its own
smaller committees to give more detailed reports building on the
general 'IGF report on so or so...' or is people prefer 'messages from
the IGF'.<br>
<br>
All this is not only plausible, but badly and urgently required. There
is no IGF improvements without addressing this issue. <br>
<br>
<blockquote>
<pre>"The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair reflection of all positions." (Wolfgang)</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, we are not looking at such a huge diversity of messages. Developing
structures or non-structures towards such a thing must be guarded
against. We could as well take a twitter poll on 100 issues. We are
looking at rather more substantial political convergences. We need them
if we have to live together as one world, and be just and fair to all.
Parminder <br><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<br>
Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi
with regard to "outcomes" the problem is whether the "outcome" has to be a "negotiated text" where everybody agrees, or a "non-negotiated text" in form of a summary from a recognized (and respected) source as "the chair", a "rapporteur", the "secretariat" or something else. I made the proposal already in a 2007 MAG meeting to have non-negotiated "messages" (two or three from each workshop, formulated by the chair or the rapporteur of the workshops) instead of negotiated "recommendations". And the Brazilian host considered it seriously to have instead of a (negotiated) "IGF Declaration from Rio" a document titled "IGF Messages from Rio". However, nothing worked and we got only the "Chair´s summary" and the book (the summarized proceedings) as outcome from the Rio meeting (and the subsequent IGFs).
I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be "one group says so and the other group says so". The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair reflection of all positions.
It works quite well in EURODIG.
Wolfgang
________________________________
Von: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-request@lists.cpsr.org</a> im Auftrag von Roland Perry
Gesendet: Mi 26.01.2011 11:53
An: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations
In message <a href="mailto:4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net" target="_blank"><4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net></a>, at 14:01:09 on Wed, 26
Jan 2011, parminder <a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> writes
>>Amend ECOSOC res 2007/8 to require the IGF Secretariat to submit
>>directly its respective report to the CSTD Secretariat, as it is the
>>case already explicitly for GAID. This will be in addition of what
>>DESA includes in its respective report, as GAID and IGF are part of
>>DESA.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Agreed. Though it should not merely be a copy of the present kind of
report that goes to the DESA. IT should be substantive, laying out the
key public policy issues chosen were discussions, the outcomes, and
proposed follow ups.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>Outcomes?
Something more substantial than "we have to discuss this again, because
we ran out of time when the interpreters needed their lunch break" I
presume.
--
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div><font color="#888888"><pre cols="72">--
PK </pre>
</font></div>
<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, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other 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>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</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></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>