<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<font face="sans-serif"><br>
Taking Miguel's ideas forward, I think one main, the main, issue in IGF
reform is in terms of its outcomes vis a vis strong impact on global
Internet policies.<br>
<br>
Now, if can agree to a few basics here, that makes the ground to move
forward. Can we agree that it is the public agora for global Internet
policies. And in as far as an agora is useful only if there is someone
- in charge of making actual policies listening and following up, the
key issues are - <br>
<br>
(1) how to obtain/ frame global policy related outcomes from the IGF, <br>
<br>
(2) how to effectively communicate them to the spaces/ forums/ bodies
etc that should and would make actual policies, and<br>
<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. <br>
<br>
Theoritically all this may be quite well but if we have to be able to
come up with the really needed 'correctives' to the IGF, we need to get
down to practical historical details of what actually has been
happening here.<br>
<br>
Like any effective agora, IGF was supposed to take up a sincere debate
on issues of most pressing (and also long term) importance to the
*people*, and come out with some views on these issues, to be then
followed up by policy making levels.<br>
<br>
Lets try and look back as to what happened on the ground at the IGFs in
this regard. I am sorry, here some key actors may not get seen in too
good a light, but we should accept it rather than blaming me for
'exclusionary politics' , in the same manner that many developing
country governments did not get seen in good light on the MSism issue
so hotly and forcefully discussed on this list last month. <br>
<br>
To take one illustrative example. At WSIS, US's untenable unilateral
political control over some critical internet resources (CIRs) was the
hottest IG issue. Of course it is a legitimate issue. IGF's first job
therefore should have been to openly and sincerely discuss this issue -
and look at why it is untenable, what is the world's opinion on it, how
ITU however may not be the right option, why any UN body may or may not
have its own problems, whether a new world body with UN/ Red Cross type
special host agreements should be floated, or whether the best way
forward was for the US to gradually dilute its controls.......... <br>
<br>
But what did the IGF do about it. I hope everyone knows, this is recent
history. There were bloody fights to even get the CIR subject on the
agenda for a couple of years. and once it did come to the agenda, some
key 'stakeholders' have used all their resources and craftiness to not
get any sincere discussion going on this subject. (See for instance
Milton's IGP blog on the insipid discussions on the subject at the
Vilnius IGF).<br>
<br>
If there has at all been any movement on the front of US control of
ICANN in form of FoC agreement (whose usefulness remains in great
doubt) it had nothing to do with any discussions at the IGF. When in
fact IGF should have been discussing all possible options, and US gov
under some obligations to respond to these. <br>
<br>
Now, I dont think the ICANN question is the most imp IG issue, but the
above is an illustrative example. The present structure, and excuse me
to be direct about it, the role of the majority of non-gov stakeholders
is somehow almost always directed towards not getting the most key
public policies issues on the agenda and and having a sincere
discussion from public interest point of view on it. I am ready to hear
anyone here dispute this proposition with proofs. Is it then
surprising that most people seriously bothered about global Internet
policy issues have lost interest in the IGF. There is a Council of
Europe conference coming up in April 2011 on IG, which I see focussed
point blank on the most key global IG issues today. Why have we not
been discussing those issues at the IGF? Who - what actors and what
structures - are responsible for it? We need to be able to place our
finger on this structural defect in the IGF, and try to remedy. And if
CS will not discuss these most important issues openly, who will?<br>
<br>
My opinion is, it is not the developing country govs (the easily
villianised) that are responsible for the failures of the IGF, the
first real MS experiment in global governance, it is the
'multi-stakeholders' themselves (I think the readers can easily
identify which stakeholders).<br>
<br>
So rather than looking for enemies outsides, lets see how to exorcise
the ghosts within our much vaunted MS system. How to make sure that
non-gov stakeholders go to the table with sincere purpose of making
progress in terms of global Internet policies with the real interest of
the global public, of the people of the world, in mind. Who these
public interest stakeholders can be? How to ensure that the hierarchy
between wider public interest (realizing which is the key objective)
and narrow private interests is ensured in the IGF structure. <br>
<br>
Brazilians have an excellent MS system which we can try to use for the
global platforms as well. It is as closely aligned to broader public
interest as it can get I think, though of course there must be areas of
improvement there as well. So while we interrogate state power and all
other things, lets interrogate MSism as well. Our ultimate interest has
to be global public Interest, and not narrow self-serving institutional
forms, which we cling to without introspection about the realtionship
of these forms to the ultimate objective.<br>
<br>
In any case , more to the subject, lets see how we can ensure that the
most pressing global IG issues can be picked by the IGF every year,
(making sure that all possibility of resistance to this required
activity is structurally closed) and a sincere focused and outcome
oriented discussion with a view to 'real change' can take place. If we
can have this, outcome structuring wont be difficult. If we dont ensure
this, any kind of new structures wont get any outcomes.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
Miguel Alcaine wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimqciQRbnMUbd=CUx1_KN7VghLLSMS7TDzkm5gS@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Dear all,<br>
<br>
As an early supporter of these ideas, I would like to hightlight the
following from Parminder's mail:<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>
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">On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 8:24 AM, parminder <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</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;">
<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>
____________________________________________________________<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
PK</pre>
</body>
</html>