Dear all,<br><br>Please find below my personal political assessment of the meeting.<br>If you prefer to read it online, here is the link: <a href="http://observatoriodainternet.br/second-meeting-of-the-working-group-on-improvements-to-the-internet-governance-forum-ends-with-no-final-report">http://observatoriodainternet.br/second-meeting-of-the-working-group-on-improvements-to-the-internet-governance-forum-ends-with-no-final-report</a><br>
<br>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN">Second meeting of the
Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum ends with no
final report</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">Marilia</span> Maciel, Center for
Technology and Society of FGV, Brazil</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title=""><i style="">Warning: This text
reflects the author's personal opinions and does not reflect the position of
civil society on the issue.</i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN">Multistakeholder collaboration
is a powerful, creative and positive force. </span><span title="">But it never
achieves an irreversible stage of "maturity"; it is something that is
constantly under construction by collective effort, with unclenching fists ands
the true desire to build trust</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">After two meetings, the <a href="http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/">working group</a> of the UN Commission
of Science and Technology for Development (<a href="http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839">CSTD</a>)
on the enhancement of IGF failed to prepare its final report. </span><span title="">The WG was successful in "collecting, compiling and reviewing the
contributions" received, but it was not able to make "recommendations”
for change, as envisaged by the mandate. </span><span title="">The chair, Frédéric
Riehl, will send to the next meeting of the CSTD his personal report and a
compilation of all contributions. </span><span title="">Probably he will ask for
an extension of the mandate of the WG, so the group can complete its assignment.<br>
<br>
</span><span title="">Now that the meeting is over, it is important that the
largest possible number of participants in the WG makes a <b style="">frank and critical analysis</b> of what happened, so the obstacles to
build consensus can be identified and dealt with. </span><span title="">This is
fundamental to achieve better results in the future, if the mandate is renewed
by CSTD.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">Three major issues have prevented this small and
committed group to reach the expected goals:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">• The <b style="">reduced
number of meetings</b> and the mismanagement of the little time that we had. </span><span title="">More meetings and a more efficient methodology could have made much
difference;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN">• The <b style="">existence of conflicting and
politically sensitive themes</b> on the Internet governance agenda this year,
as Enhanced Cooperation (<a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html">Tunis Agenda</a>,
paragraph 69) and divergences between the GAC and the ICANN Board, served as a complicating
background. </span><span title="">Certainly, the overwhelming majority of WG
members recognized the importance of IGF and genuinely made efforts to propose
constructive improvements, however, the political context made convergences
more difficult to achieve. </span><span title="">Most governmental and
nongovernmental actors acted </span><span title="">within in the WG </span><span title="">according to their broader political strategies;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">• The <b style="">high degree
of mistrust and poor quality of dialogue between stakeholder groups</b>, which
occurred during most of the time, being interspersed by brief genuine attempts
at rapprochement that only palely reminded us of the high level of dialogue we have
built over the past five years with the IGF.<br>
<br style="">
<br style="">
</span></p>
<span title="">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style=""><u><span style="" lang="EN">I - The lack of dialogue deadly
injured the working group</span></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">Perhaps it would be strategically interesting for the
non-governmental actors to <a href="http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/03/25/cstdwg-collapse">put the responsibility
for the lack of dialogue entirely on governments</a>. </span><span title="">After
all, collectively we could repeat the mantra that the non-governmental share of
"multistakeholderism” is always constructively in agreement, thus trying to strengthen
our own participation in the Internet governance regime.</span></p></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span title="">However,
I believe this view is biased and counterproductive, as it does not portray the
<b style="">divisions that existed in the working
group</b> and would not, therefore, contribute to the overcoming of obstacles.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br></span></p>
<span title="">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">There were honest divergences based on different views on
the IGF and the current system of Internet governance, both among states and
among non-governmental actors, regarding the main themes on the table, such as
the discussion on results (outcomes) of the IGF, on the composition of </span><span title="">the MAG and on funding.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title=""><b style="">Most of these
differences were not irreconcilable, if there had been a frank dialogue and attempt
to reach a middle ground</b>. </span><span title="">But that's not what
happened, nor in plenary sessions, or in corridors. </span><span title="">In
the corridors, business sector representatives complained of governments,
governments complained about the technical community and we, civil society, complained
of everyone else. </span><span title="">After each long day of discussion, each
stakeholder group would split into strategic meetings. </span><span title="">The
lack of dialogue between the stakeholder groups rendered the task at hand much
more difficult.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
<br>
</span><span title=""><b style=""><u>II - India, an
actor in the spotlight</u></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">Among all participants, India was the only one to submit a
detailed proposal on how to extract more objective and concrete outcomes from
the discussions at the IGF, <b style="">as early as
the February meeting</b> in Montreux. </span><span title="">This proposal was <a href="http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Contributions/M1/India.pdf">available
online</a> in March 16. </span><span title="">The text contributed much to the
debate (whether or not one agrees with its substance), because it proposed a chorological
and rational approach to the issue. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">There was no other proposal as comprehensive as that one
the table in the beginning of the second meeting, but Indian proposal was never
discussed. Throughout the process, India as an actor (and never their
proposals) was placed on trial. </span><b style=""><span title="">The country is being criticized on the grounds of being proactive, presenting
their views, and asking for their effective discussion.</span></b> </p></span><span title="">We, non-governmental actors, always complained about the lack of
government involvement, but we were unable to be open to hear when such true involvement
was present in the WG. </span>
<span title="">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">India</span>
is a leading advocate of Enhanced Cooperation, and had the transparency and coherence
to re-affirm it at the meeting, even though I consider that this move was
unnecessary and ultimately counterproductive. </p></span><span title="">But <b style="">Indian position in favor of enhanced
cooperation does not mean we should isolate it. </b></span><span title="">That
would be a strategic mistake. </span><span title="">We should not push a
government that represents one of the largest democracies in the world, and has
come to defend multi-stakeholder participation in the IGF arena, to entrench.</span>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN">Non-governmental actors need to strengthen dialogue and negotiations
with India
and some of the other countries that advocate for enhanced cooperation, if not on
the name of understanding, then on our own strategic benefit.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title=""><b style=""><u>III - Submit
your proposal and I will submit mine!</u></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">Throughout the second day other proposals popped up. First,
on the composition of the MAG, presented by India,
the Technical Community and Egypt.
</span><span title="">Then Egypt
has made proposals on working methods of the IGF and the format of the IGF
meetings. </span><span title="">Civil society also had a procedural proposal on
how to conduct the discussion. </span><span title="">However, none of these
proposals came to be analyzed. </span><span title="">We lost precious hours on
the last day of our meeting, under the baton of the chair, aimless discussing question
after question listed in the questionnaire, without any conclusions or sense of
“closure”.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">Basically, <b style="">presenting
proposals-and-counter-proposals became the main game between the parties</b>,
to the point where people could not know for sure who-proposed-what or
who-was-against-what. </span><span title="">That was a pity, because in fact
there were excellent proposals on the table and some of them showed
considerable degree of convergence between them, which was never identified
during the meeting.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title=""><b style=""><u>IV - The
"consensus document" that would not fly</u></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">The chair tried to grasp the consensus among the parties
on a document which was handed to us on the second day. </span><span title="">Despite
the commendable pro-activity, in my view, also expressed during the meeting, the
document could not be endorsed as the result of the discussions within the
working group, mainly because:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">• It expressed principles and practices that are
generally accepted and are commonplace in the IGF. </span><span title="">It was
shallow and had contradictory parts. </span><span title="">Submit that document
to the CSTD would not be fair to the efforts of the members of the working
group because it was <b style="">not consistent with
the depth and quality of contributions;</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN">• The document presented by the chair was extremely conservative regarding
the improvements in the IGF. </span><span title="">It had no structural changes
but basically <b style="">maintained the status quo</b>;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">• Therefore, the document <b style="">did not seriously represent a proposal for a consensus among the diverging
views</b>, but translated much more accurately the aspirations of groups that,
for their own legitimate considerations, want to keep IGF without major
changes. This rendered consensus on the text very difficult.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">Each time a change was suggested, the paragraph was
placed in brackets. </span><span title="">Of course, <b style="">the decision to use brackets can be interpreted in different manners.</b>
In my view, it was a last attempt to try to work with the text in hand, which
turned out to be unsuccessful, eventually. After every comment, the chair
reminded us that time was running out and pressed us to accept the text as it
was. </span><span title="">It was a very counterproductive afternoon in an
oppressive climate.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">Acknowledging the fact that there was no final report was
very disappointing for most of us. </span><span title="">Once the meeting
ended, some people, from all stakeholder groups approached the chair and the
Secretary and asked them to seek the renewal of the mandate. </span><b style=""><span title="">That was the last move of
the actors of the WG, all united around a common goal</span></b>. <span title="">Could
this translate into greater future cooperation?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title=""><b style=""><u>V - Some
take-aways and an invitation</u></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">On the night of our last day in Geneva, something unprecedented (at least during
the process of the WG) happened: members of civil society and the technical
community had dinner together. </span><span title="">T</span><span title="">he conversation was not about amenities, but remained focused on the WG.
</span><span title="">Without strategic considerations or fear, we exchanged
views</span>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">Some differences are more difficult to reconcile. </span><span title="">Others just seem to be, because of the efforts it takes to put oneself
in others´ shoes. What fear lies behind the resistance to more concrete results
arising from the IGF? </span><span title="">What is the sentiment toward the
current composition and functioning of MAG? </span><span title="">Do we
"recognize ourselves" in it? </span><span title="">What are the
reasons and fears of governments that advocate for enhanced cooperation? </span><span title="">Do they all have the same agenda? </span><span title="">None of these
issues was discussed openly in recent months by WG members, and may not have
been sufficiently articulated even in the IGF.<br>
<br>
</span><span title=""><b style="">The multistakeholder
nature of IGF made us achieve something truly amazing over the past years</b>. </span><span title="">Stakeholder groups can actually talk to each other and engage in an
open debate on difficult issues, such as critical resources, access, security
and privacy. </span><span title="">We left our trenches. </span><span title="">During
these years, I witnessed players being genuinely convinced after a fierce
debate, and also amicably "agreeing to disagree" and to continue
debating constructively in the future. </span><span title="">Unfortunately, we
are stumbling to do the same when we discuss the infrastructure of our own
regime, outside the "friendly" environment of the IGF. </span><span title="">How to deal with that?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN">Multistakeholder collaboration is a powerful, creative and positive force. </span><span title="">But it never achieves an irreversible stage of "maturity"; it
is something that is constantly under construction by collective effort, with unclenching
fists and the true desire to build trust.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title="">After our dinner, I probably understand better the opinions
of colleagues in the technical community. </span><span title="">While we do not
share some views, I feel more comfortable and more able to seek converging
positions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" lang="EN"><br>
</span><span title=""><b>Perhaps we should establish this open and frank dialogue
on major political issues that will be in the agenda of Internet governance this
year.</b> </span><span title="">A workshop? </span><span title="">A collective dinner with good wine? </span><span title="">Here is an invitation... If the bill is shared, of course!<br></span></p>
<br><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>