<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">Hello all,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">I am writing to share my impressions on the CSTD IGFWG meeting with you, and I am glad to see that I focused some on some points that were different from Izumi's and Wolfgang's. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">The first day, dedicated to procedure is better documented below. On the second day, I found it diffcult to take notes while following the meeting and intervening at the same time. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15.2777px; ">In any case, the meeting was being recorded and I asked the Secretariat to make the transcript available as soon as possible on the website, together with all contributions received in the past or yet to be received (about the new version of the questionnaire, see below)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<b><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">1 - General impressions</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">Multistakeholder participation and equal chance to intervene on this space seems to be something widely accepted now. India, Iran and others welcomed the participation of other stakeholders, which was very positive.<span> </span>Non-gov actors could speak on equal footing.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">The mood was not very good at the beginning of the meeting. The Secretariat’s lack of responsiveness, the fact that they conevened the meeting in Montreux during Saturday and the fact that the questions that would supposedly structure report were not discussed in advance all gave place to criticism, <span> </span>which the Chair did not take well. Saying it short, we are dealing with an unskilled Chair/Secretariat and this is something to worry, given the huge amount of work ahead and the lack of time.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><b><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">2- Structure of the report <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">(jump this topic if you don't want to hear about procedure)</span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">The meeting begun with a procedural clarification asked by India and Egypt. They asked if the questions of the draft structure were the ones that would guide the writing of the report and asked who would actually take the task of writing it. Some people argued the draft structure was an agenda for the WG meeting only, not the actual structure of the report. Personally, I found this approach a bit nonsense.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">The chair said that we would only discuss that at the end of the meeting, but suggested that maybe an ad hoc group could be created to write the report.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">India made a point that we could not go into substantive matters if we were not sure that we were actually discussing points that would table the report. In my opinion, the points made by India were very pertinent, but unfortunately lead us to be caught in procedural matters again on the first day.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">Suggestions were made about new questions that should be introduced if the points were going to guide the writing of the report. Ex: the first question should be an evaluation of the fullfillment of te IGF mandate vis-a-vis the Tunis Agenda, so we would know and document exactly which are the key-areas for improvement.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">India distributed a proposal that changed a bit the structure from the questionnaire proposed by the secretariat. The business sector also presented a proposal. Both proposals were successfully merged during coffee brake. After new disgreements, the draft structure was approved on the beginning of day 2,<span> </span>being called as” key elements for the report”, which give us room to believe that new issues can be included if the relevant (I dont think any of the issues can be removed, though).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<b><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><b><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">3 – Outcomes of the IGF</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">As I said, I did not manage to take many notes on day 2, while speaking and listening, but my impression was that there was general support that the IGF would have as outcome something that would cover convergence and divergence on policy matters and be apt to feed into the process of police making taking place in other relevant bodies. The actual ways to do it were not consensus, the approach mentioned by Wolfgang (a lot of messages emerged from workshops) was one of the possibilities on the table, some others were advanced as well. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<b><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">4- Remote participation</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">Huge support about it. It was really important to talk about RP in the CSTD WG environment, since some representatives did not know it in details. RP was recognized as key element for inclusion, a key innovation from the IGF that deserved more support and joint efforts to enhancement. Workshops conducted completely online during the IGF (including from hubs) were suggestd. Some meetings of the MAG and OC could take place online as well.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<b><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">5- How to write the report</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">As said before, at the beginning of the meeting, the chair suggested the creation of a smaller drafting group for the report, that seemed to have been generally accpeted. Many people spoke for it, no one spoke against it</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">On the second day a proposal circulated that the drafting group would have the role to compile the points raised in all consultations and write a first version of the report, then circulate online for comments. In depth discussions would take place in the next meeting of the WG. Everybody agreed and then we discussed the composition during lunch.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">The proposal advanced by Brazil was that there should be 1 country per region (total of 5) plus 1 from the business sector plus 1 from technical and academic community and 2 from civil society. The reason of the 2 reps from CS, according to them,<span> </span>was that CS represented many diferent views that are difficult to capture. India supported.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">This proposal seems to have disagreed very much the business sector, but instead of discussing and making a conter-proposal they took a step back and decided to be against the draft group. They argued that we should leave for the secretariat to come with a report and our role should be to discuss it. Developed countries (Finland, US, Portugal) and Russia backed the proposal. I think it is a pitty and a dangerous political move in face of the faults commited by the secretariat and the chair. In addition, Brazil raised a good point about the incoherence to preach that multistakeholders can take issues and do things collaboratively and then leave this important matter in the hands of the secretariat.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">DESA asked<span> </span>the WG to also portrait the lessons learned. highlight more in the report things such as the multistakeholder carachteristic and remote participation</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><b><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">6 – Next steps</span></b><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> (please someone correct me if I am wrong, it was mentioned fast):</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">- The new structure of the questionnaire will be placed online, comments will be open until March 15</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">- The Secretariat will compile older contributions, new contributions and the points raised in this WG meeting and write a draft report</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">- The report will be sent to WG members. They can offer comments</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">- The text will be discussed on 24 and 25 March in Geneva.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<b><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">7- Submission of the report</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">DESA said they had contacted the office in NY and postponed the delivery of the report to April 1st. <span> </span>Still tight!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; ">The report should have 17 pages maximum</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri; "> </span></p><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Izumi AIZU <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aizu@anr.org">aizu@anr.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Thank you Wolfgang for your quite precise and concise summary.<br>
<br>
Since I had to leave earlier than the meeting's closure, I could not<br>
capture what was the closing, especially with<br>
regard to the "drafting group" since several members including USG and<br>
business were not supporting the<br>
creation of such drafting group consist of WG members,<br>
but rather to task it to the secretariat, to me that is not<br>
the right path.<br>
<br>
I would like to underscore what Wolfgang mentioned here<br>
about the good acceptance and recognition of Civil society<br>
members and our inputs - compared with December where<br>
it was very different. I spoke with India, Egypt, and some<br>
other gov members informally during brakes and they are<br>
really trying to accommodate us as peer members, and<br>
valuing our input (and other stakeholders input).<br>
<br>
No one questioned the composition of drafting group<br>
include non-gov stakeholders - yes, we had some difference<br>
between CS and business for the number of members to the<br>
drafting group. CS wanted to have more numbers than other<br>
stakeholders since we are much more diverse than, say business or<br>
academic/tech community. They disagreed and tried to keep equal<br>
number.<br>
<br>
This does not mean, please, that CS members were supporting G77<br>
position on outcome. As far as I can tell, no<br>
CS members took that position per se.<br>
<br>
izumi<br>
<br>
2011/2/27 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"<br>
<<a href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de">wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a>>:<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">> Hi everybody<br>
><br>
> here are some observations from the IGF Improvement meeting in Montreux.<br>
><br>
> 1. The first and most important point is that nobody challenged the participation of civil society and other non-governmental stakeholders as equals in the discussion and in the future drafting of the final report. After the two December meetings of the UNCSTD this was not so obviously expected. Even the government of Iran said that it values the contribution of non-governmental stakeholders in the process since 2003. There was no hostile climate. In contrary, contributions from all five CS reps in the WG were taken as very helpful and reasonable input.<br>
><br>
> 2. A lot of time was wasted with the discussion on procedureal issues. The discussion on substantial issues circeled for hours around the questions of the "linkage" of the IGF. India, Egypt but also Brazil used the languge of the UNGA resolution which says that the IGF should be linked to the "broader dialogue on Internet Governance". Some pepole in the room had the impression that this is not a good language because the broadest dialogue is the IGF itself. And there was some mistrust that this could become a formula to put the IGF under the "enhanced cooperation" discussion in the UNGA. Alternative proposed language was to link the IGF to "other dialogues" but India and Egypt insisted in the "accepted language" which, BTW, was introduced by the US government during the negotiations in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA in New York in November 2010. However both Egypt and India accepted an interpretiaton that one of the functions of the IGF is to bring information to other dialogues and that this formulation (in the headline of Chapter 2 of the forthcoming report) will not include any formal sub-ordination of the IGF under "another dialogue". My comment here is that it is rather obvious that on the one hand IGF and EC are two different processes which are not formally interlinked but there are some trade offs on the other hand. The IBSA was not discussed in detail. This will remain an open question. Russia proposed again to link the IGF with the WSIS Forum but produced protest against any form of "merger". In a second interventon Russia clarified that they did not propose "merger" but wanted to use "synergies" to avoid the waste of resources. There was no support for a closer linkage between the two fora.<br>
><br>
> 3. The debate about outcome did not create any new ideas. There was a broad consensus that the IGF should not become a "negotiation body", should not produce any "negotiated language" or "binding recommendations", but should produce something which people can take home and read within "ten minutes" and show their constituencies as "outcome". My impression was that more and more stakeholders, including governments, can live with "messages". The proposed procedure to generate the messages was not discussed in detail but the proposal to have nominated rapporteurs for each workshop and plenary who have to produce one to three "short messages" from the discussion was seen as a reasonable approach. This would guaratee that there is a distributed system of messages production which would reduce the risk of capture of the drafting by one single group. 50 workshops would mean 50 - 150 messages from 50 rapporteurs.<br>
><br>
> 4. Another key issues was the role and function of the MAG. The idea to have the MAG (or the secretariat) like a bureau was mentioned but got no suprport. The majority was in favour of a more open MAG, more open consultations and a right mixture between continuation and rotation in the membership. A related question was the financing of the secretariat. India and Egypt called for a stable public funding (to become independen from voluntary contributions) but they did not say where the money should come from.<br>
><br>
> 5. The broader involvement of developing countries was discussed at length. There was a broad consensus among all participants that the participation of developing countries - both governments and non-govenrmental stakeholders - has to be broadend. There was an outspoken wish to strengthen in particular civil society organisations and small and medium enterprises in developing countries and to enable them to participate more actively in IGF activities.<br>
><br>
> 6. There was a clear support for a stronger linkage between the global IGF and national and regional IGFs. On the other hand, dynamic coalitions were not really discussed. There was a proposal to have in between the global IGFs also "thematic IGFs" but also here no concrete step was planned.<br>
><br>
> 7. The meeting decided not to go into the details of how to organize workshops, plenaries, feeder workshops etc. Some proposals were made how to improve the planning and the linkage between the various sessions within an IGF, but this has to be further discussed.<br>
><br>
> 8. The only thing (but this is not bad) the group could agree after two days is the structure of the planned report to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011. There is now an informal drafting group which will work together with the Secretariat to draft the report for the next meeting, scheduled for March 24/25, 2011 in Geneva.<br>
><br>
> I want to thank all friends of the IGC and the civil society for their input. CS played and active and recognized role and made very valuable contributions to the process. At the end Anriette, Parminder and other raised even the issue to increase the number of CS people in the various forthcoming groups because CS is different from the other non-governmentwl stakeholders (broader, more diverse etc.). Nobody really objetced this but there was no time left for a discussion, Lets wait and see where we will go from here.<br>
><br>
> Best wishes<br>
><br>
> wolfgang<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>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div>--<br>
>> Izumi Aizu <<<br>
<br>
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo<br>
<br>
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,<br>
Japan<br>
* * * * *<br>
<< Writing the Future of the History >><br>
<a href="http://www.anr.org" target="_blank">www.anr.org</a><br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">____________________________________________________________<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>
</div></div></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>