<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
Dear All<br>
<br>
I will take the following para from Wolfgang's email to present what
I think happened at the meeting of the WG on IGF improvements.<br>
<br>
<blockquote>
<pre wrap="">"I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue." "</pre>
</blockquote>
Excuse me to respectfully disagree with what is sought to be
constructed here. It is a predictable script with predictable
villains - of course, those developing countries, who else. A UN
meeting on any IG issue perhaps need not even happen for this
'result' and 'analysis' of it to be produced :) . I keep hoping
however that we would open our minds to look beyond this predictable
response that we seem to remain stuck in.<br>
<br>
Why did the WG meeting break down? Were there countries already
predisposed to the failure of the WG? It may be interesting to note
that developing countries had been seeking early and greater number
of meetings of the WG since late last December, a request that was
not heeded. Why would they want more meetings if they always wanted
this WG to fail as it finally did?<br>
<br>
Then when Montreux happened, and there was not much that came out if
it, some very interesting things happened in the last hour or so of
that meeting. Brazil, India, Egypt and some other developing
countries wanted a multistakeholder drafting group to work between
the two meetings to come up with a draft with which the second
meeting could start. Everyone knew that was the only way to produce
a report within the 2 days of the WG meeting that were left when the
group reassembled. A multi-stakeholder drafting group was proposed
with about the same ratio as the overall WG - 5 gov members and 5
non gov members. However, on civil society's prompting some
developing countries (lead here by Brazil) proposed that civil
society can have 3 members instead of the originally proposed one
becuase they represent greater diversity of views, with one member
of business, one of tech comminuty etc. Business and tech community,
and then some major devloping countries, said a clear no to this
proposal to expanded civil society membership of the proposed
drafting group. <br>
<br>
Very soon thereafter, business said 'no' to the very proposal of a
drafting group, they wanted the secretariat to prepare a draft. Tech
community and major developed countries also seemed to be supporting
this position (without their support it wont have carried). Here I
will stop and pose this question to ourselves, as civil society,
because this question is also important in terms of the most central
substantive issue concerning IGF improvements that become the key
point on which disagreement could not be closed out, whereby the WG
failed to prepare any recs.<br>
<br>
Do we as civil society prefer representative/ multi-stakeholder
working group based processes to produce key substantive documents
in the IG space, or do we prefer secretariat based processes for
such an activity?<br>
<br>
(If we can form a clear response to this poser, we will know where
we are vis a vis 'the key' contestation at the WG meeting regarding
substantive improvement to. the IGF. So lets be try and be clear and
specific on this. I think the question is clear and direct enough.)<br>
<br>
In fact, when the drafting group proposal was shot down at the end
of the first meeting of the WG in Montreux, the Brazilian rep made
an incisive comment, pointing to the paradox how when he and some
other (developing) government reps are proposing a multi-stakeholder
drafting group, some major non-government stakeholders were opposing
it. No one responded, of course. Do 'WE', as IGC, have an answer to
this paradox. <br>
<br>
Since we are on a connected point, let me hurry to what were the
real differences on which the WG process broke down (though I still
think with some deft managing we could still have come out with
something substantial, but on that later.)<br>
<br>
There were three key issues of disagreement - IGF outcomes, MAG
selection (especially of non-gov stakeholders), and IGF funding.
Among these, the make-or-break issue was 'IGF outcomes'. If this
issue could have been agreed upon we would have got a very good
report, and that would really have been a substantial step forward
for the IGF, and for global IG. Without looking throughly at what
happened around this central issue we cannot get the right picture
of the WG proceedings. <br>
<br>
Here, the only real proposal on the table was India's proposal (
enclosed ) made during the Montreux meeting itself. This proposal
was not acceptable to developed countries. This, in my view, was the
real issue because of which the WG process broke down. So before we
start assessing what really happened and who is at fault, let us,
each of us, and if possible, collectively, form an opinion if this
proposal is fine by us, and the right way to go ahead. If it is the
right way to go ahead, then whoever did not accept it needs to be
blamed for WG failure, not those who proposed it, and those who
supported it. <br>
<br>
There was no clear counter proposal (to India's) for IGF outcomes on
the table. though the term 'messages' was thrown around a few times.
I specifically asked the proposers of 'messages' from the IGF as the
way to get outcomes to clearly put out the envisaged process of
producing what is being called as 'messages', and also to explain
how this process would be different from the Chairman's summary, and
a shorter bulletted Chairman's summary, already being prepared at
present. I never got a clear reply, which if it was put on table
would have constituted a specific outcomes related proposal. <br>
<br>
Let me try to focus further on what was the real point of difference
across the table. IGF already produces long and short summary of
plenary proceedings. So the essential difference between India's
proposal and the present practice (or the 'messages' proposal) is
about who does the 'summing up' and how. Back to the question that
arose regarding drafting the report of the WG on IGF improvements -
are we more comfortable with secretariats doing such stuff, or do
we, we the evangelists of multistakeholderism in policy shaping/
making, support multi stakeholder working groups doing it. That is
the core point we must decide. And depending on which way we decide
it we can then know which side of the main contestation at the WG we
are on. And then perhaps, if we really must, we can choose our
villains. And if we indeed are inclined to suspect a 'planned
failure' to use Wolfgang's term, then see whose planning it could
be. Though I suspect that with some more real hard work we could
have got some good results from the WG. <br>
<br>
It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society advocate on
IG and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind.
Can a multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well
directed stuff on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and
divergences, but with relatively clear alternative policy options as
done by WGIG - from an IGF process that is to be specifically
designed to help it do so. This process starts from choosing clear
and specific policy questions for IGF's consideration, forming WGs
around each chosen issue, developing background material around
each, WG then helps plan the process at the IGF through right
format, speakers etc, help prepare appropriate feeder workshops,
then arrange round tables on the chosen issue at the IGF before it
goes to the plenary, and then the denouement, the multi stakeholder
group brings out a document which could be 2 pages or 10 on key
areas of convergence, divergence etc, with 'relatively' clear policy
paths and options. Things may be difficult initially, but it is my
understanding, and I would like to hear other views, that this is
the only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on policy
making. And the steps I have described here were essentially the
gist of India's proposal.<br>
<br>
Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who
opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So,
Wolfgang when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that
part on 'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you
mean by this term in the context of the happenings at the WG on IGF.
<br>
<br>
I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be
more comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and
representative multistakeholder working groups writing key documents
which have clear political import. Can we not see that even if we
seem to be at the moment happy with some specific personnel who
constitute the secretariat at a particular time, this situation
could easily reverse. Would we then change our view on whether
secretariat should do such stuff or alternatively, a
multistakeholder WG. To make what I am saying more clear, just
consider what if the key secretariat personnel were not put there by
a particular country whose political positions we generally agreed
with but by another country (which could happen any time) whose
political opinions we were much against. This is purely
hypothetical, put putting real countries and real people in this
imagined situation will greatly help make clear what I am driving
at. <br>
<br>
I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main
issues that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG
composition and IGF funding). Also will refer to some other issues
mentioned in Annriette's and Marilia's reports. However, it is the
IGF outcomes issue which was the real thing around which everything
revolved, and which was to determine if anything substantial could
come out of the WG's meeting. Our judgments about what happened at
the WG, in my view, must most of all be informed by this issue. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear all
I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable result within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of the launch and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question.
I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue."
A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as a process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon the Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF Working Group and if Nairobi becomes an "outstanding success", this will make life much more difficult for the governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA to change the direction.
What are the options now for civil society?
Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the failure of the process and watch what the governments will do.
Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice in the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the existing group until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA, which starts in early October 2011.
Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for an alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented via a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva. On the eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day open multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: How to improve multistakeholder collaboration".
Best wishes
wolfgang
____________________________________________________________
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>
</body>
</html>