<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<font face="sans-serif">Hi Marilia<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote><span style="" lang="EN-US">"One of the
most important shortcomings when we think about the IGF is that it did
not satisfactorily
fulfill the role of being a facilitator for policy development.
Improving the
IGF dynamics in a way that is can provide multistakeholder input for
policy development
should be one of main goals in our current exercise."</span><br>
</blockquote>
Completely agree. And this is the main subject of the email I just sent
out. Maybe just a little too much steeped in a historical analysis of
what has been happening at the IGF and why. However, I think these
practical details are important if we are to have any real hope of real
improvements. <br>
<br>
Also, to respond to the rest of your email, I have no doubt that once
our thinking is informed by the larger issues, it directly connects to
responses to the specific sections under the present draft structure.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
Marilia Maciel wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTi=dY_RtAeAO3qaz-rwsQs510itRO=3XB+xeC3kj@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Parminder,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">I agree
very much with your approach, to try to think about the broader picture
at the
same time that we try to come out with concrete suggestions under the
several
topics in the draft. No doubt that this broad analysis will help to
keep us on
track, be coherent and avoid zooming our suggestions too much in a way
that we get
lost in details.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">The political
and institutional scenario in which the IGF is included – MDG, WSIS,
CSTD – as well
as the text of the AG resolution that renews the mandate, shows that
one of the
fundamental concerns that underpins this Internet governance matrix in
UN is
promoting development. And development needs to be sustained by public
policy. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">One of the
most important shortcomings when we think about the IGF is that it did
not satisfactorily
fulfill the role of being a facilitator for policy development.
Improving the
IGF dynamics in a way that is can provide multistakeholder input for
policy development
should be one of main goals in our current exercise. There are many
unexplored links
between the IGF and other UN bodies (including the CSTD) that already
have a role
in policy development. And if an enhanced cooperation mechanism gets
implemented,
the IGF needs to be deeply linked with it as well. We need to define
exactly what
it means to be “complementary” to enhanced cooperation. This may be
explored in question 7.<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">One
conclusion of the above is that the IGF needs to produce outcomes fit
for
policy development, which lead us to the discussion of question number
3. Also,
the Secretariat needs to be strengthened and the role of the MAG needs
to be
reviewed, so it can meaningfully assist on the process of transforming
the
rough summary of discussions into something that can orient the
development of
policy, which leads us to the discussion of question 6.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Marília</span></p>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Miguel
Alcaine <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:miguel.alcaine@gmail.com">miguel.alcaine@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Dear
all,<br>
<br>
As an early supporter of these ideas, I would like to hightlight the
following from Parminder's mail:
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
The UN GA resolution for instance sought improvements specifically with
a 'view to linking it to the broader<br>
dialogue on global Internet governance', It also mentions IGF's
complementarity to the enhanced cooperation process, which itself is an
important issue to keep in mind for proposing structural improvements.<br>
<br>
</div>
Those intersections between a) IGF and the broader dialogue and, b) IGF
and enhanced cooperation need to be designed.<br>
<br>
The IGF will be needed as an agora, a place for discussion among all
stakeholders without negotiations, in the Internet Governance
ecosystem. One way to strengthen its relationships with decision taking
entities in the Internet Governance Ecosystem is through its results:
e.g. report, messages, etc. This is one part of the equation. The other
part of the equation will be to have a way of reviewing if messages,
report, etc. had been taken into account in other entities.<br>
<br>
IGF is an example of enhanced cooperation, at least in having everybody
at the same level. In other settings, in spite of Westphalia, there are
States more equal than others. Additionally, other entities of the IG
ecosystem could take advantage of the IGF by communicating to the IGF
community their results, methods of work, etc which may also be a way
of observing if the WSIS IG principles are evolving in the IG ecosystem.<br>
<br>
The two processes may be complementary as the resolution says. For
once, the non-negotiating nature of the IGF is not going to change.
And, on the other hand, EC, as focused by the Tunis Agenda, may evolve
towards more formal arrangements.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Miguel<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="h5">On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 8:24 AM, parminder <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">Dear All<br>
<br>
Excuse me to start a new thread in addition to the separate ones based
on the different questions from the *draft* structure sent out for the
WGIGF report. The reason for this is that while we discuss the details,
we should focus on the fact that this is a much higher level exercise
for seeking possible structural reforms in the IGF, beyond the kind of
things that can be done through evolutionary practices guided by the
MAG. The WGIGF report will be submitted to the UN GA which is expected
to take an appropriate decision on what structural improvements are
needed in the IGF. <br>
<br>
A good way to begin at such foundational times is to look at the 'why'
of the whole this. Why does the IGF exist and what do we want from it.
Such an examination can then guide us to looking the the necessary
structural changes.<br>
<br>
The UN GA resolution for instance sought improvements specifically with
a 'view to linking it to the broader<br>
dialogue on global Internet governance', It also mentions IGF's
complementarity to the enhanced cooperation process, which itself is an
important issue to keep in mind for proposing structural improvements.
The there is the WSIS mandate of the IGF against which we must check
its present performance and look at required improvements. Added to it
are the our own civil society interests of what 'change we want to see
happen' and explore how IGF improvements can contribute to that basic
objective. <br>
<br>
How we (my organisation and the CS networks we work with) relate to the
IGF is vis a vis our concern that the Internet is one of the most
potent social forces today, and at present its development may to a
good extent be determined by the interests of those who are already
most powerful. We therefore look at every opportunity to democratise
the 'control' over the directions that Internet's development takes. In
this regard not only greater participation is necessary but actual
forums where the required public interest policy making can take place
are needed. The main focus here is global forums, because that is the
context we are in here, and in any case the Internet is inherently
global, and most of the decisions that shape the Internet are global in
their impact. <br>
<br>
We are not satisfied with IGF being just another global conference on
IG issues, which is something any private actor could as well hold.
Granted that IGF is open to anyone (who has the necessary funds) and
that its agenda and structure is shaped by a multistakeholder group,
which is a big plus. However, we need to judge it on its impact of real
people's lives, which is mediated through its impact on global Internet
related policies (we can discuss why in this context global is the
primary focus). We dont judge IGF's performance too well on this count,
and our efforts towards IGF improvement will be focused on this aspect
on how it can have some to real global Internet policy impact.<br>
<br>
It is necessary that IGC discusses and figures out what is its real
intent/ objective in seeking IGF reform, wherefrom can flow concrete
proposals for reform. But lets focus more on larger structural things -
things like how can IGF's policy issues related outcomes be shaped and
routed to appropriate places and the what kind of funding is
appropriate for the IGF. Once we have our views on these critical
issues, most other things become so much easier to sort out. <br>
<br>
My fear is that if we spend too much time too early in looking at the
details of what may be by comparison lesser issues, we will lose what
may be the last opportunity to make structural reforms in the IGF. We
may end up with an IGF with not much recognizable difference from the
IGF we have today. And my judgment is that most actors in developing
countries are not at all happy for the IGF to continue largely as it is
today for the reasons discussed earlier. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
</pre>
</div>
<br>
</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, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</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><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</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><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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
PK</pre>
</body>
</html>