<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:27 PM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div 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.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote>
<pre>"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></div>
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.</div></blockquote><div><br>He said governments, not developing country governments.<br><br> </div><snip><br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<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></div></blockquote><div> </div><div><br>Why must it be either/or? That is no the way IG has traditionally been done, so I don't see why we should encourage it as the way forward for IG discussions. <br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<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></div></blockquote><div><br>I reject the validity of any WG that I cannot be a part of and contribute to in an open and transparent way.. I don't need nor do I want intermediaries representing me.<br>
<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<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></div></blockquote><div><br>Yes, we don't have to agree to their rules about who can participate and how they can do so.<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<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.</div></blockquote><div><br>I don't think it is the way forward because it is limited to MAG members and some "experts". <br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333"> 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></div></blockquote><div><snip> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<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.</div></blockquote><div><br><br>If you want to have an influence on actual policy, you must engage in the policy making bodies.<br><br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333"> 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</div></blockquote><div><br>Can you explain how they are accountable to me? <br><br><br></div></div>-- <br>Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>