<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Hi Jeanette
and all,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Your e-mail
is short, and yet, provides so much food for discussion. I envy your
conciseness! :)<br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Allow me to barge in the debate with Parminder and share some thoughts, below:<br></span></p>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu">jeanette@wzb.eu</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;">
<br>
<br>
Actually, I don't want to decide this question. I would prefer to look at these issues as a process rather than a binary decision. </blockquote><div><br>There are occasions we do need to make a decision. In the WG, either we would take by the hand the task of writting the report or we would leave it to the Secretariat. It is very difficult for me to understand why we should prefer a Secretariat/chair with no experience on IG matters, with proved lack of ability, to write such an important document. It was our responsibility, and we should have worked online, in a smaller but representative drafting group, right after the Feb meeting in Montreux. <br>
<br>In the context of the IGF, I agree with you that it does not have to be one OR the other. The chair´s report can live side by side with "outcomes" extracted from the IGF discussions. But both have different purposes. While the chair produces a political summary of main highlights (that usually have no real substance), the collection of outcomes from the discussions should capture, preserve and do something useful (outreach) with the rich debate that takes place in IGF.<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;">We have faced the issue of formal outcome versus no outcome at all over several years. Both options have support from strong groups. The way out of such constellations is evolution not an either/or constellation. </blockquote>
<div><br>In my opinion we are not witnessing the same debate taking place over the years. The debate has changed, in an evolutionary manner, I would say. Three years ago there were those who would argue for strong recommendation from the IGF, even binding. Today, this option is out of the table. No stakeholder group defended anything like that in the WG. In general terms, we are between "no change" and "outcomes that reflect converging views and alternative policy options". There is no deliberation involved, as all different views would be reflected. This is change and evolution, in my view. Shouldn´t the ones that want "no outcomes" take a step towards the point of convergence and equilibrium?<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;">What I would have liked to see is an experimental approach where each annual IGF meeting will try out new versions of reporting taking on board the experiences from regional and national IGFs.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Certainly, that would be interesting, I strongly support that idea as
well. But it does not exclude any of the approaches above. <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;">
In my view, it would have been sufficient if the CSTD WG would have endorsed such an open process.<br></blockquote><div><br>Honestly, I think that this would be quite little for an expert WG to propose as the main improvement to the IGF, and this would not address the concern expressed in the report of the Secretary-general, which served as base for the convening of the WG in the first place.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><font color="#888888">
<br>
jeanette</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br></div></div></blockquote><div>Best wishes,<br><br>Marília <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><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
And then perhaps, if we really<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
must, we can choose our villains. And if we indeed are inclined to<br>
suspect a 'planned failure' to use Wolfgang's term, then see whose<br>
planning it could be. Though I suspect that with some more real hard<br>
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<br>
and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind. Can a<br>
multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed stuff<br>
on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but with<br>
relatively clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG - from an<br>
IGF process that is to be specifically designed to help it do so. This<br>
process starts from choosing clear and specific policy questions for<br>
IGF's consideration, forming WGs around each chosen issue, developing<br>
background material around each, WG then helps plan the process at the<br>
IGF through right format, speakers etc, help prepare appropriate feeder<br>
workshops, then arrange round tables on the chosen issue at the IGF<br>
before it goes to the plenary, and then the denouement, the multi<br>
stakeholder group brings out a document which could be 2 pages or 10 on<br>
key areas of convergence, divergence etc, with 'relatively' clear policy<br>
paths and options. Things may be difficult initially, but it is my<br>
understanding, and I would like to hear other views, that this is the<br>
only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on policy making.<br>
And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist of India's<br>
proposal.<br>
<br>
Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who<br>
opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, Wolfgang<br>
when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on<br>
'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you mean by<br>
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<br>
comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative<br>
multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have clear<br>
political import. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at the<br>
moment happy with some specific personnel who constitute the secretariat<br>
at a particular time, this situation could easily reverse. Would we then<br>
change our view on whether secretariat should do such stuff or<br>
alternatively, a multistakeholder WG. To make what I am saying more<br>
clear, just consider what if the key secretariat personnel were not put<br>
there by a particular country whose political positions we generally<br>
agreed with but by another country (which could happen any time) whose<br>
political opinions we were much against. This is purely hypothetical,<br>
put putting real countries and real people in this imagined situation<br>
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<br>
that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition and IGF<br>
funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in Annriette's<br>
and Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes issue which was<br>
the real thing around which everything revolved, and which was to<br>
determine if anything substantial could come out of the WG's meeting.<br>
Our judgments about what happened at the WG, in my view, must most of<br>
all be informed by this issue.<br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Dear all<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
What are the options now for civil society?<br>
<br>
Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the failure of the process and watch what the governments will do.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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".<br>
<br>
Best wishes<br>
<br>
wolfgang<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">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>
</blockquote></blockquote>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">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>