<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body 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>
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>
<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 wrap="">"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>
<br>
Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org">governance-request@lists.cpsr.org</a> im Auftrag von Roland Perry
Gesendet: Mi 26.01.2011 11:53
An: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations
In message <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net"><4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net></a>, at 14:01:09 on Wed, 26
Jan 2011, parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><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 wrap="">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 wrap=""><!---->
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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
PK</pre>
</body>
</html>