<!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">
Apologies for the font mix up in my earlier email, which was caused
by the cut paste of the quoted part from another document.<br>
<br>
The third important issue in the WG meeting was about IGF funding.<br>
<br>
At the meeting, no one advocated that voluntary and mixed funding
should be discontinued. However, developing countries insisted that
UN should have at least have some regular budget devoted to the IGF,
which is at present not the case. *There is no official UN budget
devoted to the IGF at all*. This inter alia causes a depriortization
and demotion of IGF in the UN system vis a vis other UN related
organizations, which is of course not a good thing. Developing
country reps also argued the case at length of how an official
policy related body cannot be allowed to remain dependent on private
or voluntary funding alone. This is a perfectly logical assertion.
Policy related forums cannot be left hostage to unpredictable and
unstable funding which voluntary funding obviously means. One can
think of any official policy forums in our respective national
contexts. Would we accept, for instance, if there were to be an
official 'ICT in schools' public forum for policy discussion and
input dependent entirely on private finding? I think we would all
claim it to be a practice contrary to all cannons and values of
public life.<br>
<br>
However, governments of developed countries, supported by business
and technical community, were for carrying on with the present
funding model, and making no change to it at all , especially not
seeking the opening up of an UN line of budget for it. They however
never directly addressed the question as to why were they opposed to
opening up a committed UN budgetary line *in addition to* all other
funds that IGF receives today. For developing countries this was as
importantly an issue of principle, as of practical import (whereby
they rightly argued; what happens to the IGF if for some reason all
voluntary support was to cease suddenly, or over a period of time).<br>
<br>
Since, we in the IGC have spoken often, and at length, about the
needed independence for the IGF, it may be useful to examine in
that light the different propositions that were on the table at the
WG meeting with regard to IGF funding. As mentioned, at least in my
opinion, this was one of the three key areas of disagreement to
which the stalemate at the WG meeting can be attributed. (Just to
remind, I have discussed the two other key areas/issues in my
earlier emails, which can also be found below.)<br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
On Wednesday 06 April 2011 06:57 PM, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D9C6A2B.9090608@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="sans-serif">Hi All<br>
<br>
Sorry for the long delay, but to finish my report on WG on IGF
improvements:<br>
<br>
I had mentioned that, in my view, there were three key issues on
which a possible WG report with recommendations on IGF
improvements got stuck; IGF outcomes, selection of MAG members
(especially non gov members) and IGF funding. India's
contribution had important proposals on all these key issues,
which in my view were quite reasonable, as I argue below.<br>
<br>
My earlier email dealt with the most important of these issues -
IGF outcomes. The present one will list some of the key
constestations around the other two key issues. <br>
<br>
<u>Selection of MAG members:</u><br>
<br>
This issue for me is very important vis a vis establishing the
meaning as well as legitimacy of multistakeholderism. And I hope
we can generate an internal debate on the positions different
actors took on this issue in the WG, and take otherwise. I quote
the relevant parts from India's submission in full in this
regard:<br>
</font><font face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }</style>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }</style>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-left: 0.04cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%;" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="FreeSans, sans-serif"><font
style="font-size: 13pt;" size="3">"The selection of
non-government representatives to the MAG has to be made
more transparent and democratic/representative to better
represent different sections of the society, more so the
marginalised. Efforts have to be made to obtain as
globally representative a group as possible. At present,
there are no specific processes to ensure these
imperatives, and the selection process is largely </font><font
style="font-size: 13pt;" size="3"><i>ad hoc </i></font><font
style="font-size: 13pt;" size="3">and mediated by some key
global stakeholder bodies, without due transparency about
the process followed to ensure that the diversity of
interests and views in that particular stakeholder group
are duly represented."</font></font> </p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.04cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%;" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="FreeSans, sans-serif"><font
style="font-size: 13pt;" size="3"> "We recommend an
accountable, transparent and diversified stakeholder
selection process for stakeholder representatives. Such a
process should demonstrate its connectedness to the full
range of diversity within each stakeholder group,
especially those from developing countries, and otherwise
less represented groups. Each stakeholder group while
selecting its representatives should describe the process
used in making the selection, and also specifically
mention what steps were taken to include a full diversity
of views and interests, and less represented groups,
including those from developing counties. To get the
selection process right is very important for the success
of the unique multi-stakeholder experiment in global
governance that the IGF represents."</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.04cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%;" align="JUSTIFY"> "<font face="FreeSans, sans-serif"><font
style="font-size: 13pt;" size="3">One way of ensuring that
specific interests are kept out of MAG is by stipulating
that the business sector members should not be
representatives of specific private companies, but
represent different trade associations like in the areas
of telecom, software companies, etc. The technical
community members could similarly include representatives
from key technical and academic institutions. The
selection process for civil society members could be made
similarly democratic, with representatives selected by a
network of NGOs working in areas associated with Internet
policies, thus representing a really broad spectrum of
civil society."<br>
</font></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-left: 0.04cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%;" align="JUSTIFY"><font face="sans-serif">(quote ends)</font><font
face="sans-serif"><br>
</font><font face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>In addition was also proposed a table indicating a quota
based selection from each geographical region so that geographic
diversity was ensured. (At the meeting India did say that this
was only to serve as a broad guideline, and was meant to stress
that concern that there should be enough internal diversity
within non gov reps in the MAG, and it should not get dominated
by reps from the North.) In the table proposed by India, the
total number of MAG members remained more or less the same as
present while there was a small increase in the number of gov
reps (from 22 to 25), quite large increase in CS reps (7 to 11)
and some reduction for business (13 to 9) and tech community
reps (13 to 9). As mentioned, India made it clear that all this
was open to a reasoned discussion. <br>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.04cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%;" align="JUSTIFY"><font face="FreeSans, sans-serif"><font
style="font-size: 13pt;" size="3">I find the above proposals
quite reasonable. Multistakeholderism is for me a means to
ensure that <br>
</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.04cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%;" align="JUSTIFY"><font face="FreeSans, sans-serif"><font
style="font-size: 13pt;" size="3">1) a sufficient and full
diversity of legitimate interests are represented in policy
making processes<br>
</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.04cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%;" align="JUSTIFY"><font face="FreeSans, sans-serif"><font
style="font-size: 13pt;" size="3">2) the accent has to be on
getting in those interests that are otherwise (through other
processes of representation) are most likely to be kept out,
or under-represented<br>
</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.04cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%;" align="JUSTIFY"><font face="FreeSans, sans-serif"><font
style="font-size: 13pt;" size="3">(3) there has to be
conscious, deliberate and very strong measures, on an
ongoing manner, to ensure that a multistakeholder process is
not captured by certain dominant groups, which would defeat
the very purpose of multistakeholderism ( in the same as our
struggles for more democracy represent our efforts to ensure
that the 'governmental' method of representation is not
captured)<br>
</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.04cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%;" align="JUSTIFY"><font face="FreeSans, sans-serif"><font
style="font-size: 13pt;" size="3"><br>
I see the India's proposal completely in keeping with what I
take to be as the key tenets and logic of
multistakeholderism. And therefore I supported it. However,
once again, there was no constructive engagement with this
detailed proposal. Business and technical members said that
the manner in which 'they' ( they</font></font><font
face="FreeSans, sans-serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt;"
size="3"> who? is of course never clear</font></font><font
face="FreeSans, sans-serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt;"
size="3">) choose members to represent their stakeholder
group should be left to them and no guidelines etc are
necessary. I do not agree to this argument. It is setting
up multistakeholderism for capture, which is a big problem
many democratic governments have with it. Progressive civil
society certainly has a big problem with such possibilities
of capture of MSism. We ourselves would like to see strong
and specific processes towards ensuring that such capture
does not take place. As long as we agree on this imperative,
what those processes would in fact look like can always be
discussed. This was also India's position, and they wanted a
discussion on this issue. Here is a clear instance of some
developing countries coming forward for doing a constructive
engagement with multi-stakeholderism and key non-gov
stakeholders shying away. They need to answer why did they
do so.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.04cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%;" align="JUSTIFY"><font face="FreeSans, sans-serif"><font
style="font-size: 13pt;" size="3">Business and technical
community while refusing to engage with India's proposal
were intent on pushing the 'triage' proposal that had come
from the last MAG meeting. As per this proposal a committee
of old MAG members will do a kind of triage over recs coming
from different stakeholder groups, who would be left to
themselves to choose their process of selection of their
reps and forwarding the names to this committee, without any
further guidelines of openess, transparency diversity,
representativeness etc. There are at least two things wrong
with this proposal - one, that the old MAG members committee
would perpetuate a nincestuous system of inclusion and
exclusion which I am not at all comfortable with. Even worse
is the proposition that, for instance, business group
members will decide on selections from civil society. One
can well understand what kind of exclusions and inclusions
this will entail. It is important to mention that many of
the civil society members of MAG opposed such a system of
selection, and for unclear reasons the proposal was taken as
adopted by the MAG meeting despite this opposition
(Katitiza, Graciela, Fouad, Valeria and others present can
vouch for this).<br>
</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.04cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%;" align="JUSTIFY"><font face="FreeSans, sans-serif"><font
style="font-size: 13pt;" size="3">The issues that this above
debate raises are crucial to engage with for anyone who
champions multistakeholderism, and i hope we in IGC can also
discuss them throughly here. <br>
</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.04cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%;" align="JUSTIFY"><font face="FreeSans, sans-serif"><font
style="font-size: 13pt;" size="3">Let me discuss the IGF
funding issue in my next email.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.04cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height:
100%;" align="JUSTIFY"><font face="FreeSans, sans-serif"><font
style="font-size: 13pt;" size="3">Parminder <br>
</font></font></p>
<br>
On Tuesday 29 March 2011 11:57 PM, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>